Tuscumbia, Courtland and Decatur Railroad and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 October 10: Difference between pages

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 06:25, 10 October 2008

< October 9	October 11 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 08:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

MedExpress Urgent Care

debatable notability.. not clearly asserted Versa geek 06:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete. fails WP:CORP not enough third party sources to establish notability. bordering on advertising. Michellecrisp (talk) 15:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Weak keep The article is not blatant spam, so I've declined the speedy tag placed by Alexius. A Google News Archive search returns a number of third-party, reliable sources about this company, allowing it to narrowly pass WP:CORP. Some are from: Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, The Register-Herald, and another article from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Cunard (talk) 07:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 20:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Weak keep. Operating in multiple states, etc etc. JFW | T@lk 23:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. CSD:A7. Stifle (talk) 10:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Computers for kids

Disputed prod. Non-notable organisation. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 06:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete as vandalism. Should be "thorrow" anyway. Stifle (talk) 12:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Worrow

Completely fails WP:NEO, and may be made up. Is this speediable? TallNapoleon (talk) 03:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete Non-referenced. Would not pass dictionary approval and meets no wiki criteria --Daviddavey (talk) 04:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete per WP:DICDEF. Agree that this would not pass Wiktionary muster. MuZemike (talk) 06:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete - It's obviously WP:BOLLOCKS and something made up one day; additionally, I'd suggest it could be speedied because it exists primarily to mock a particular kind of lisp. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 12:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Lorelei (bondage model)

Could not find any independent secondary reliable source that verifies notability. See WP:PORNBIO. According to WP:V, "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete passes neither WP:BIO or even WP:PORNBIO. All the magazines listed appear to be grade-Z skin rags we don't even have articles on ("Ladies in Barefoot Bondage #1"?! Come on.) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete--I agree with the above editors. Drmies (talk) 18:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Comment Added an IMDB link, and still digging for info... SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Temporary keep There is three years of improvement by a number of editors. This could have potential. Deleting it could kill an article by eliminating traces of it. Putting in a user space also hides it. Do not put it in my user space as I do not want porn there. This is not a case of an unknown star trying to write their own article. Is this person one of the more famous bondage stars? If so, this may have merit. Spevw (talk) 23:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- I'd say if the article has had "three years of improvement by a number of editors" and is still in the present condition, that's a strong indication that bringing it up to article standards is fundametally impossible due to a non-notable subject for whom no reliable sources exist. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep: 70+ IMDB credits at http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1104292/, well-known figure in bondage movies. Regular top-10 appearances as a model in the SIGNY awards, and several times SIGNY best website winner for her bedroombondage.com site. -- Karada (talk) 16:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment What are some of the reliable sources that verifies her fame in bondage movies? Even though I don't think top-10 finishes in SIGNY necessarily means she is a serious nominee for a well known award, what are some reliable sources that verify the SIGNYs? Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Weak delete. If the SIGNY nominations award can be backed, and if they can be shown as being notable, then my vote changes. Otherwise I don't see anything in the article to show notability. Tabercil (talk) 22:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil (talk) 22:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep. WP:PORNBIO does not apply here. Given the number of references in IMDB there is no reason to delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment, bondage videos are a form of pornography so I don't understand why WP:PORNBIO wouldn't apply. IMDB doesn't refrain from listing pornographic movies. Morbidthoughts (talk) 12:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete a BLP without one single reliable source. RMHED (talk) 00:18, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete per Starblind. Anyone can add anything to IMDB. Stifle (talk) 08:35, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Delte. Whether WP:pornbio or WP:bio apply, this fails both. IMDB is not a RS for anything, so it fails verifiability and notability, and i think most would agree that listing someone as a porn actress with no sources is a serious WP:BLP violoation.Yobmod (talk) 09:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 15:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

St. Joseph School of San Jose City

Delete for non-notability. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 05:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep per WP:SCHOOL. If a secondary school serves a majority of students in its region, it is generally considered notable. Ottre 05:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- How did you determine that it "serves a majority of students in its region"? According to the school's unreferenced article, it has a student body of 800. San Jose City has a population of 108,254. So what is the relevant region here? Postdlf (talk) 00:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete per Geogre's law. Stifle (talk) 08:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Comment: This has been moved to St. Joseph School of San Jose City with the redirect deleted. Stifle (talk) 12:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep It should be considered notable. If there were a school district representative of this school to which it could be merged, then that would be my recommendation. It can and should be expanded with additional information, but does not deserve to be deleted. JavierMC 01:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Apart from whatever opinions we may have about the subject matter, there are no reliable sources at present. If information about it can't be documented outside of the school's own website (apparently a myspace page), then there isn't anything upon which an article can be based. Postdlf (talk) 01:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —JavierMC 01:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep - since it contains a high school. Filipino schools invariably have a poor internet presence. We need to avoid systemic bias and time should be given for local sources to be researched and added. TerriersFan (talk) 15:08, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Or we could delete based on the subject's current lack of verifiable information, without prejudice to recreation at such a time such reliable sources are found. Postdlf (talk) 19:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep per WP:CSB and the fact that high schools are inherently notable. --Pwnage8 (talk) 04:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep It has a secondary school, although it has a pretty small student population. Starczamora (talk) 20:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

It actually has large student body, comparatively speaking. Ottre 02:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 08:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Aamir Ghauri

no established notability except from one minor source, reads as promotional Daviddavey (talk) 04:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete: not notable. Alexius08 (talk) 05:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep and improve. Seems to be notable. [1] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- How so? There aren't major sources from Pakistan or elsewhere that cite his work. Or am I missing something?--Daviddavey (talk) 12:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete insufficient notability. He's a TV personality in Pakistan, So ??? Annette46 (talk) 15:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete As above. Non-notable personality. doktorb _words^deeds 21:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete -- seems to be a NN journalist. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep. He is behind major news programs. You may not value Pakistan news, but people in Pakistan do not value American news channels, yet we have articles on people who are probably less disticntive to American news. Wikipedia is meant to world wide, not just American.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete as vandalism. Should be "thorrow" anyway. Stifle (talk) 12:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Worrow

Completely fails WP:NEO, and may be made up. Is this speediable? TallNapoleon (talk) 03:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete Non-referenced. Would not pass dictionary approval and meets no wiki criteria --Daviddavey (talk) 04:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete per WP:DICDEF. Agree that this would not pass Wiktionary muster. MuZemike (talk) 06:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete - It's obviously WP:BOLLOCKS and something made up one day; additionally, I'd suggest it could be speedied because it exists primarily to mock a particular kind of lisp. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. and not likely to emerge. Merging or not does not require AfD and there's no consensus to delete. TravellingCari 20:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

James Potter and the Hall of Elders' Crossing

I just closed the AfD for this movie as a WP:SNOW...while I was deleting, I found this page...it's a fan fiction novel... Smashville^talk 03:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Merge whatever's left after a good cleanup to Legal disputes over the Harry Potter series since it does appear to have some RS'ing. Jclemens (talk) 04:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Jclemens (talk) 04:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep, seems to have been covered by reliable sources, just the fact that it is fan-fiction is no criterium to delete. --Reinoutr (talk) 06:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete and bury the remains at a crossroads at midnight. Much of the 'notability' for this thing is WP:ONEVENT-type stuff. Possibly, a merge as recommended by Jclemens might work. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete per AlexTiefling. NN fanfic. Stifle (talk) 12:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete per WP:WEB. Fanfic is essentially non-notable by definition, and the "sources" primarily discuss this as an actual official sequel, which obviously turned out not to be the case... apparently the writer was trying to build up buzz from naiive young fans thinking this was an actual 8th book to be published. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Merge the third-party-sourced information to Legal disputes over the Harry Potter series and redirect. I only considerded a weak merge at first, but since this fanfic has some ONEVENT-ness surrounding its legal dispute but is still not mentioned in Legal disputes over the Harry Potter series, notability and undue weight is a concern here. – sgeureka ^t•c 14:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Merge the details of any legal dispute from reliable sources to Legal disputes over the Harry Potter series. Details of the content of the book and its writer need deleting with extreme prejudice per WP:ONEVENT. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 12:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Weak keep per my comments during the previous AFD. Unlike the film which was NN, this fanfic has been referenced in major third-party sources and that pushes it past the notability/viability bar. 23skidoo (talk) 16:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Merge/~~Weak~~ Keep. This seems like a notable enough book, at the very least notable enough for the legal disputes article because JK Rowling has at least mentioned this in public. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 03:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep, for all the reasons I said the first time around. The subject of the article is arguably even more notable now than it was when I originally created the article almost a year ago; Lippert has even started writing a sequel. There has even been some speculation about Warner Bros. possibly even considering adapting the story to continue making money off the Harry Potter name brand after the last film version of Deathly Hallows is released—unlikely that that would ever pan out, but still, within the Harry Potter fan community at least, this is a big deal. I don't know what else I can say to convince people here; I'm just glad the article wasn't deleted the first time around. --Antodav2007 (talk) 03:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete and merge the remnants into "legal disputes", per Jclemens. "A big deal in the online fan community because of a bogus rumor" doesn't constitute notability. Lippert (or some of his fanbase) seems to be good at getting people to buy into nonsense; we shouldn't be enablers. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete as nn-band.. Stifle (talk) 10:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

N. Nomurai

Non notable band, fr33k man -s- 03:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The band is notable. There have been several concerts and recordings released, with more tours and recordings on the way from Echolocation Recordings, which is why this article was posted. This is not an attempt at free publicity (that's what MySpace is for), but an opportunity for the international audiences seeking information on the band to have an explanation. Updates will be coming shortly. If there are recommendations you might suggest to the content, please share them. If you dispute the article because you feel the band is not notable, I assure you that to a vast audience nationwide, and a growing foreign fan-base, this is a quite notable project. —Preceding unsigned comment added by N. nomurai (talk • contribs) 03:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Notability is generally established through non-trivial attention from WP:RELIABLE published sources or reliably sourced proof of achievement. So far N. Nomurai shows neither. If this project is notable, then reliable references should already be available. • Gene93k (talk) 05:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete no notability referenced at all - google search does not turn up anything. --Daviddavey (talk) 04:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Comment - Wikipedia's version of notable means there are at least two multi-paragraph news stories about the band. Produce those and the article will be fine, else look out. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Notability per WP:MUSIC is not even asserted. Search brings up their MySpace page and a local appearance. Check on record label claim only brings back the MySpace page. The author's username and linkspam edits indicate self promotion. • Gene93k (talk) 05:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was deleted (CSD G3) by Anthony Appleyard. NAC. Cliff smith ^talk 05:41, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Hexism

Seems to be a hoax. Google has no hits for "hexonomist", "tazurin", "retorious" in this context except for the religion Wikia page this is copied from. —Largo Plazo (talk) 02:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete please. There's nothing there. Eh...is Hexis a person? Drmies (talk) 03:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Note I just put it up for speedy after a conversation I had with the author on the article's talk page.—Largo Plazo (talk) 03:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete. This page seems ridiculous in my mind. There is nothing informative here that seams real what-so-ever.
Endorse Speedy or however the hoax gets deleted most efficiently. Jclemens (talk) 04:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy redirect to Parramatta Salvation Army. Stifle (talk) 10:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Parramatta Citadel Band

A non-notable Salvation Army band. No eveidence of notability supported by reliable, independent sources have been provided. It appears to be a worthy but unremarkable group. A previous speedy deletion tag has been contested and removed. Listing it here for discussion. Mattinbgn\^talk 02:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 02:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Merge with Parramatta Salvation Army#Brass Band. Does not warrant a separate article. WWGB (talk) 03:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:41, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete Not notable.--Grahame (talk) 06:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Strong Delete Fails WP:ORG and WP:MUSIC miserably. Michellecrisp (talk) 06:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete Not notable, seems to be edited by a person with a relationship to the article contents, and has considerable original research components.--VS ^talk 06:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. CSD:G11. Stifle (talk) 10:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Breaking Down Boundaries

A non-notable organisation. No evidence from independent, reliable sources has been provided to demonstrate notability. The article reads like an promotional piece rather than an encyclopaedia article and talks more about what the organisation will do rather than the notable activities it has done. Mattinbgn\^talk 02:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 02:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete for non-notability and tone. Drmies (talk) 03:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Delete as spam. TallNapoleon (talk) 05:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 12:13, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The Dark Wielder

Appears to be a non-notable comic. Google searches for the title of the comic and the author produce no meaningful hits. The username of the article creator may indicate self-promotion, also. The entire article is plot summary. Amazinglarry (talk) 02:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Note Karone The Spy, Gothica, HighMax, and Blood Romance are related pages that might also be included in this deletion listing. I'm not sure how to list multiple articles for deletion under one entry, though, so if someone could help me out I would appreciate it. Thanks. Amazinglarry (talk) 03:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete. I tried to chase the author on a few websites, but nothing came up that would make him a notable author. The comic itself couldn't be located either. Anyone else find the same thing?
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete either an outright hoax or a "Dude, I totally plan on doing this comic when I finish my social studies homework" sort of thing. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Dude, totally delete as article has no reputable third-party sources saying this is notable. --Dragonfiend (talk) 16:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete all this and the the related articles (listed in the template at the bottom of the page, which isn't actually a template, a small mercy as it means we can skip the TfD) lack of anything covering WP:N or even WP:V and no actual evidence this exists. (Emperor (talk) 16:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC))
Delete Couldn't find any good sources --Banime (talk) 23:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Strong Delete Obvious hoax - the supposed broadcast run goes through December of next year. Edward321 (talk) 03:56, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 12:13, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Speed racer pass

Seems to be a non-notable neologism based on events in the film/manga series "speed racer". Ironholds (talk) 02:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete as a neologism. Alexius08 (talk) 05:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete WP:NFT. JuJube (talk) 06:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Strong delete per WP:NEO and WP:NFT. Arguably Steak sauce material, as well. MuZemike (talk) 07:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete per WP:MADEUP. Stifle (talk) 12:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Marxist-Leninist Party candidates, 2000 Canadian federal election. MBisanz ^talk 15:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Lorne Gershuny

Contested prod. Unelected politician, non-notable beyond that. No reliable sources provided, none found beyond Wikipedia mirrors and official press releases. TN‑X-Man 02:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- Eastmain (talk) 03:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Eastmain (talk) 03:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete. I cannot find evidence that his trip to North Korea or his work as a lawyer makes him notable. Some politicians were the subject of coverage in reliable sources when they were students, but I cannot find any evidence that Gershuny was. -- Eastmain (talk) 03:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Reviewing Mista-X's rationale for disputing the prod, I have to point out that while Wikipedia does indeed have articles about other unelected politicians, the rule is that those politicians have to meet WP:POLITICIAN — that is, there have to be verifiable reliable sources indicating that the person in question has achieved enough to warrant an encyclopedia article. I'd also love to know where Mista-X gleans that there's ever been a prior keep consensus on this article, since I can't find any record of a prior deletion discussion apart from his own prod disputation. Accordingly, redirect to one of the Marxist-Leninist Party candidates lists. Bearcat (talk) 19:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Merge with any of the Marxist-Leninist Party candidate lists. This subject is running in the current election and sources can easily be found on mlpc.ca and the elections Canada website, for starters. Secondly there are lots of sources available just from a google search. --Mista-X (talk) 03:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Merge with the appropriate Marxist-Leninist Party candidate list. I'm a bit surprised the article survived as a stand-alone piece for this long. CJCurrie (talk) 03:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Merge with any of the Marxist-Leninist Party candidate lists. Gershuny is an established Toronto attorney, and has worked on a number of highly political cases (including ones which have been referenced on Wikipedia). The possible lack of Google results on him does not negate his noteworthiness and mentions in other electronic and non-electronic realms of information. Frank Pais (talk) 22:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 15:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

2006 Winter Olympics highlights

After the 1st nomination finished, there was no consensus. There have also been 0 edits since that first nomination was concluded. The page consists *entirely* of WP:OR as to what or what not is a highlight. In short, this article is simply not encyclopedic, and there is no chance of it ever becoming one. Aaronw (talk) 01:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete I would urge the closer to examine the arguments for Keep closely and ensure that they are not along the lines of "But it's a useful article" - WP is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a collection of useful articles/information. They do coincide at times, but an article like this is simply untenable, and lists of medal counts and other such activities already exist in a non-OR form, like 2006 Winter Olympics medal table Aaronw (talk) 01:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete Inclusion in this article is entirely subjective, making it WP:OR. The sources may be enough to verify that these events actually happened but not that they were the "highlights". Beeblebrox (talk) 01:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- —G716 <^T·_C> 01:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep a linear timeline of events is useful. We do have date articles (years, year+month, etc) And we have a 2008 Summer Olympics highlights article as well. I think that all "long" events should have timelines. A linear timeline is illustrative of how events unfolded, and thus, should be encyclopedic. 70.51.10.188 (talk) 04:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep, see 2008 Summer Olympics highlights for an example of how it can be approved. --Reinoutr (talk) 06:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete "Highlights" is POV, and therefore the article fails WP:OR. Lugnuts (talk) 06:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete with the same reasoning as Lugnuts. Punkmorten (talk) 08:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete, inherently POV, also fails WP:NOR. Stifle (talk) 10:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete, per Stifle. The concept of the article is inherently POV and WP:OR. Nsk92 (talk) 11:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep As I argued in the last AfD, the only major POV part of the article is the title. As with the 2008 one, its title can be changed and content sourced. We do not delete articles because they need clean-up, as long as they have the potential to become quality articles. If done right, this could reach the level of a featured list. Claiming we do not keep based solely on utility is a straw-man argument, as there are plenty of policy-based reasons to keep this page. Random 89 17:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep, move to Chronological summary of the 2006 Winter Olympics per the 2008 precedent, and clean up per Random89. -- Jao (talk) 13:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment The 2008 list states that they are "major events". Who makes the decission on what is a major event or not? How does "major event" differ from "highlights"? Lugnuts (talk) 13:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why any of the articles has to mention "major events". However, I do agree that inclusion criteria can be a little problematic, but certainly not more so than in your average year article? What "events" are worthy of inclusion in 1967, for instance? (I know this argument is a little WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTSy, but still, I've never heard this arbitrariness in the year articles being criticized. For days of the year, there was a proposal for criteria at Wikipedia:Days of the year.) -- Jao (talk) 14:39, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep per Jao. Prince of Canada^{t | c} 13:26, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
I support move and restructuring as Jao proposed. --Tone 15:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep, the name change is a good idea as it currently suggests OR and it needs some work on sourcing but that isn't reason to delete. The 2008 equivalent is a perfectly good article. Basement12 (T.C) 15:18, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep. I believe this article serves a useful purpose, filling the gap between the main Olympic page, which has little coverage of sporting events and the individual event pages, which documents the competitions in minute detail. -- Tcncv (talk) 16:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep. No issues with a name change. Nirvana888 (talk) 19:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep and rename as proposed by Jao.Coastalsteve984 (talk) 08:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep, move to Chronological summary of the 2006 Winter Olympics and clean up, per many people above. It looks like a good timeline. If a page has a poor title, a better title is preferable to deletion. --Pixelface (talk) 08:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted by Anthony Appleyard as blatant advertising. Non-admin closure. Alexius08 (talk) 05:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

ValoreBooks.com

Article does not provide any sense of notability. Appears to be advertisement for web site. —G716 <^T·_C> 01:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- —G716 <^T·_C> 01:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete — Contested PROD with nothing but primary sources ... "Article lacks sufficient Attribution for Verifiability of the WP:WEB notability criteria" ... pure weapons-grade Vanispamcruftisement, IMHO ... Happy Editing! — 72.75.82.202 (talk · contribs) _{02:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)}
Speedy delete and ~~salt~~ lock out: unencyclopedic, blatant advertising, unsourced, unnotable, unverifiable... how can this survive? Alexius08 (talk) 05:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 15:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Sudden Attack

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable game, no references from reliable, third-party published sources, very crufty. Wikipedia is not a game guide. Wyatt Riot (talk) 09:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

This opinion seems very euro/American culture centric. This game is quite notable. I live in S. Korea, a country where computer games are played competitively on TV, in prime time, 7 days a week. This is the 2nd most popular game in the country behind Star Craft. It's unique free distribution system requiring government data is also a noteworthy contrast to standard games. The artical has major needs of revision and new sources, it's true, but it should not be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.72.229.46 (talk) 08:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 11:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete - no sources, no notability, all in-universe. JohnCD (talk) 15:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Weak Delete — with all due respect to our friends in the Far East, per JohnCD and per numerous other MMORPG AfDs that are similar to this one. Try to assume good faith here and not play the "centrism card." MuZemike (talk) 21:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep - This game is huge. Notability in the western markets is in question, but certainly not elsewhere so the argument of centrism is a good one to use in this case. For further notability, see: [2][3][4][5], it wasn't hard to find lots of sources on google for this regarding the games importance/notability. Also in correction to MuZemike, this is an MMOFPS, not an MMORPG. And it scale of popularity puts it far beyond most titles that already have wikipedia articles. TrackZero (talk) 14:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Mind you of WP:BIGNUMBER and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Sorry about the MMO-confusion (although in my eyes many MMO articles, regardless if it's an FPS or RPG, face the same staggering problems). Anyways, the first source mentioned is from a blog, a self-published source which does not readily pass WP:V. The third and fourth ones don't seem to be reliable sources. However, the second one I think is OK. However, the article needs more sources like this one to establish the significant coverage needed to satisfy WP:GNG. I'll change my !vote a weak delete for now. MuZemike (talk) 20:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Also, notability is not determined by a perception of popularity, but by verifiable sources. (Forgot to mention that from above.) MuZemike (talk) 20:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

delete without prejudice against recreation with sources etc. At the moment it has no sources. If sources exist, now would be a good time to add them... If not we can't have an article Thin boy 00 @101, i.e. 01:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete per WP:WEB, WP:N, WP:V, and so on. Only reason for keeping is essentially WP:BIGNUMBER, which is always a weak argument but particularly weak here, as people often create multiple accounts in MMO games, or create accounts and lose the password or just stop playing. Bottom line: the game is not presently notable enough for an article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Keep searching for "sudden attack" game brings up plenty of hits from game sites. Tag it for references, but there really is no rationale for deleting it. PHARMBOY (TALK) 01:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- I did the same thing, and I'm not seeing reliable sources when I did the search; what sticks out from the search are the sources TrackZero mentioned above. MuZemike (talk) 02:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Weak Keep As noted by MuZemike, the second source is okay. And I think the Asiaone source looks quite good and doesn't seem to be self-published ([6]). Given that lots of non-RS indicate this is a highly popular game in Korea, I'm inclined to take those two sources as enough. Hobit (talk) 02:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Weak Keep. This article needs speedy wikify: sounds like a game guide not a Wikipedia article. And add reliable third party sources. Zero Kitsune (talk) 04:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Comment. I found an external link which could be a reasonable source for the game but the problem is that it is the Sudden Attack official homepage itself, and is in Korean. However, I am still listing the source right here, in hopes that it is a reasonable source: ([7]) Mydoctor93 (talk) 06:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, I'm not an expert at wiki formatting. Mydoctor93 (talk) 06:39, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Weak keep with no prejudice towards nominating again if someone can't prove once and for all that this can meet WP:N and WP:V. Definitely needs a cleanup to remove the WP:GAMECRUFT. Randomran (talk) 03:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 08:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

A Plea for Purging

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable band that comes nowhere near meeting WP:BAND. There is nothing obviously available and the original author offers nothing to help. Nuttah (talk) 08:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 00:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Strong delete The only thing the e.l.s in this article demonstrate is that this band has a record deal and a myspace... so they exist. That's not nearly good enough. Thin boy 00 @102, i.e. 01:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Weak delete there is some claim to notability in having toured widely, including large festivals. That said, those claims arent actually sourced, and even if true this would still be a borderline case. If someone cares enough to fix this up I might change my mind, though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete per CSD:G4. Stifle (talk) 10:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Creighton the Cretin

AfDs for this article:

Unremarkable comic. No wanting to start an edit war here, so here's the afd. LAA Fan^sign _review 01:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment - What exactly does unremarkable mean? This seems a lot like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. If this is your only reason for deletion, then I must say this a not a very good AfD nomination. Also, where did your comment on edit warring come from? If you are talking about when I removed the PROD, then per WP:Proposed deletion#Conflicts, you aren't allowed to add it back anyways. In any case, although I might support your notion that the article should be deleted (it is incredibly in-universe with no reliable sources to indicate notability), your nomination statement of "Unremarkable comic." has much to be desired. Artichoker[talk] 01:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, let me clarify, because I usually don't write a very detailed AFD. The edit warring was I didn't want to edit war with you over the deletion, no matter what type; I try to avoid that. I nominated because this an unremarkable "comic". The comic is from a fictional book. There are no real references. At the most, it should be merged with the book.--LAA Fan^sign _review 02:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

very weak delete hard to tell. What's with that references section? Thin boy 00 @104, i.e. 01:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete appears to have been deleted by AfD consensus just a couple weeks ago. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- —G716 <^T·_C> 01:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Speedy delete (G4) — Recreation of material deleted per AfD. I don't know what else is there to explain here. Creator should've went to DRV first instead of recreating the article. MuZemike (talk) 02:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Speedy delete - As G4, recreation of material deleted via a deletion discussion. So tagged. TN‑X-Man 02:41, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete - As I said last time: "this is about a fictional cartoon created by a fictional cartoon character in a work of cartoon fiction! While the book it appears in has won awards, surely notability can't be inherited that far?" Re-creating the article in the same form with no evidence doesn't help the case for notability. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Perkins' 14

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nom withdrawn, article has been changed significantly. (Non-admin close) Beeblebrox (talk) 17:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Perkins' 14

Still in "production", everyone involved is a redlink, only source is an IMDB profile that is almost word-for-word this article. Fails general notability guideline. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd still like to see some better sources, and "it will probably be more notable later" is not the best reason to keep, but the recent improvements seem to get it past notability guidelines. Good work, Nomination withdrawn. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Strong Keep ~~Delete~~ ~~without prejudice and return when~~ WP:NF ~~can,~~ HAS beeen satisfied. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
~~Delete~~ Neutral as a future film but with an unusual angle (Internet development) that has received some but not much news attention. JJL (talk) 01:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

My bad. Principle filming has finished. See with [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], etc. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The only one of those that comes close to being a reliable source is Variety, and that's just a short blurb. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Fearmag is considered RS for its field. I would not go to them for an article on Global Warming... just as I would not go to the Washington Post on information on a horror film. When sourcing, one needs to go the the experts in the respective fields. However... I am only getting into the expansion and futher sourcing. Do not judge it too early.... Still under major revamping... Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Update I have done what I could in the last 90 minutes or so. Any further suggestions? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd appreciate input, either here or the article's talk page, about expanding the role the online intenet development that began the production of this film... the story concept contest... the actor's video auditions... the viewer input... the selection processes... the financing... etc. Or might that much information be best in a separate article about this process, rather than a subheading in this article? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep part of the After Dark Horrorfest, which tend to be sizable hits on DVD, including last year's Dark Ride by the same director. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Could you please clarify what is meant by "which tend to be sizable hits on DVD"? Thanks Beeblebrox (talk) 01:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

According to this New York Times article, the first batch brought in $10 million between their release and when the article was written (June 07). The films were also more widely reviewed and generally got more attention (i.e. Wal-Mart prominently displays them) than they would have as individual releases. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Gotcha, thanks for clarifying. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- —G716 <^T·_C> 01:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. and not likely to be one. TravellingCari 20:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Slipknot Demo

Is this topic notable enough to have its own article, or the material should be merged into the band's article? Nergaal (talk) 17:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Is there a particular notability policy that you feel the article fails? There are a large number of Demos which have their own articles, most are not cited as well as or as comprehensive as this article. Black ngold29 17:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Good point. I wasn't sure but I went to Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Albums and I saw this Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only, and unreleased albums are in general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources. Nergaal (talk) 17:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
KEEP - Per "Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only, and unreleased albums are in general not notable", I would argue that this is notable, because it's nto just a demo that the band created, it was the demo that was isntrumental in them recruiting Ross Robinson and then got them signed to Roadrunner records. This article is comprehensive and I believe it is notable enough.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete - I don't think it's notable enough. Plus I made another version on Slipkot Wikia, so you can see that one. It's good for there, as that wiki is dedicated to Slipknot (I created most of the pages there), but not here. Bramblestar (ShadowClan Leader) (talk) 02:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep - no case has been presented that the article fails any notability guidelines. If this article were to be merged into the band's page it would create undue weight on the subject. Black ngold29 02:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

grrr: Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only, and unreleased albums are in general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources Nergaal (talk) 02:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I am well aware of how to read. This demo has recieved "independent coverage in reliable sources" from MTV, as well as coverage two books about the band which are atleast second party coverage. This article has better coverage and referencing, not to mention length and verifiability that the vast majority of demo articles on WP. Not to mention the band's notability in itself; if it were from a band that has had no sucess, then I wouldn't be so supporting, but Slipknot has debuted in the top five of the Billboards and many other countries' charts multiple times, we should do well to present their full history. Black ngold29 02:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete I believe that Bramblestar is correct and that Nergaal has a point. I think this article is best if merged within the band's wikipage. Beano (talk) 03:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Not to be disrespectful to any efforts that Bramblestar may have made in creating a Slipknot wiki, but that is completely irrelevant to this discussion. That Wiki is far from on par with Wikipedia, I am here to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Slipknot articles, to be quite frank I (and I'm sure a lot of other people too) couldn't care less about another Wiki because Wikipedia is the most popular wiki and I'm here to help improve peoples understanding of Slipknot and all related articles and Wikipedia being the most popular Wiki is the obvious choice. I agree with Blackngold too, merging this topic with the band's article will add way too much weight to the subject and this article is actually better referenced, covered and represented that many demo (and even album) articles. Plus the notability of the band themselves adds significant weight to the notability of the demo. I think this is a case of WP:IAR. REZTER ^TALK ø 14:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't create the wiki. It is currently very weak, so I'm just helping to expand it. That wiki is on wikia.com, and I'm just a helper on that site. And I don't find that comment you made about my efforts to be disrespectful. My first contribution to that site was the third page created there; a page for their song "Purity". Bramblestar (ShadowClan Leader) (talk) 00:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 08:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Winnie the Pooh (song)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. The song being in most of the Winnie the Pooh series and all of the movies does not make the song notable. Schuym1 (talk) 12:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, bother-- Delete Wow, what a dilemma... trying to describe a song without being allowed to quote from the copyrighted lyrics! Without any frame of reference, this article has never been much more than some amateur literary criticism ("The lyric gives an overview of the characters and the roles each plays in relation to Pooh himself.") The only useful information -- written by the Sherman Brothers, first featured in the 1966 Disney film "Winnie the Pooh and the Honey Tree" -- can be mentioned at Winnie the Pooh#Disney media. No use for this article. Mandsford (talk) 13:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: Minimal quoting of lyrics is allowed under fair use. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 23:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Strong delete notability is not inherited. Thin boy 00 @105, i.e. 01:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete - A theme song is not inherently notable merely because it attaches to a notable medium. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Strong Keep. At face value it is not difficult to know this song is notable as it is a theme song to a very successful franchise. It has been heard all over the world in all media (Well, ok - maybe not print media) for many years. If it were only based on worldwide exposure and identifiability I would say keep. However as these deletion threads are based on the guidelines, this is a strong keep. Guidelines say a song "performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups" would be notable. Shanangai Quartet, Carly Simon, Tatiana, The Chieftains, Tommy Emmanuel and Louis Prima have all done versions. Soundvisions1 (talk) 19:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep per the arguments made by Soundvisions1. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 15:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Cake Bake Betty

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Infinity Cat Recordings. G4 or not? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 15:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep, WP:Music specifies that if a band has had a publication in a notable magazine or other publication. Cake Bake Betty had an article written on it by SUPERSWEET a notable magazine. Also toured with Be Your Own Pet a notable band. Clearly fits WP:Music under these two points. --St.daniel ^Talk 15:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment I've never heard of either SUPERSWEET or Be Your Own Pet, let alone Cake Bake Betty BMW(drive) 23:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect I doubt that I've heard of every notable band that exists in the world but that does not nessecarily effect their notability --St.daniel ^Talk 23:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 20:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete I acknowledge the above. It was more of a rhetorical comment in the grand scheme of things. I still say delete due to lack of notability, which I have spent a couple of days trying to determine BMW(drive) 20:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete, again. Same reasons as last time. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete--very POVy, not very well written--and Supersweet itself is nominated for deletion. Drmies (talk) 00:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 08:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Journalism and public intellectuals

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is not a notable topic. The article is merely an essay which rambles from Plato to Intelligent Design to Marx. Northwestgnome (talk) 06:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep - I think it's fairly well sourced. The idea itself seems to exist and referenced by different publishers. I also find it to be an interesting connection between two concepts. Perhaps it's not sufficiently developed and needs more work, but I'd like to see it stay. Chaldor (talk) 08:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem that I see is that the sources provide information about intellectuals, but not about their relationship to journalism. Northwestgnome (talk) 16:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure about that? Refs 4 & 6 seem to address both ideas together. I can't read ref 1, 2, 3, or 5; but I'm willing to assume good faith based on what I saw in Refs 4 & 6. Chaldor (talk) 20:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Reference 4 says that journalists and intellectuals are both affected by modern celebrity culture, ref 6 says Karl Marx was both a journalist and an intellectual. I don't think that is enough to write an article. (Refs 1 and 2 are about the Ancient Greeks, ref 3 is about the Intelligent Design movement, ref 5 is a general observation about intellectuals.) Northwestgnome (talk) 21:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 00:41, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete, looks like a rambling essay to me. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 01:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete. It rambles, but worse, it's not even half-finished. One or two historical facts are pulled from the shelves without an explanation why those are picked, and the rest forgotten. I mean, why bring up Gutenberg and not the 'invention' of the actual newspaper, or 17th and 18th century pamphlets, or computers, or the internet? This was written as a class assignment, it seems to me. Drmies (talk) 03:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete - interesting premise, but this brief slide around history is not. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-administrative closure) – RyanCross (talk) 01:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Neely O'Hara

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Neely O'Hara

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This character does not establish notability. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 17:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete - no indication of notability and no reliable sources. Karanacs (talk) 15:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep the most reliable sources about the character's life and history would be primary, which is fair enough. Now whether this character has enough coverage in reliable third party sources is the key point. I think they do, per these two searches [15] and [16]. RMHED (talk) 01:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep per the searches above, which are sufficient for this. DGG (talk) 17:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you point out which ones can be used? I don't really see any that provide anything non-trivial to help establish real world context. TTN (talk) 20:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep ~~Merge and Redirect~~ ~~to Valley of the Dolls where this character has its notability.~~ Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

About half way down this article there is quite a bit of discussion [17], but mainly the character is often referenced in books about Hollywood movies and sometimes in works of fiction as a kind of Hollywood actress archetype. RMHED (talk) 22:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

So we currently have one reference that amounts to trivial coverage, maybe two if the book below actually focuses on the character rather than the film. Quick mentions in fiction can't really be used besides using one or two as examples to back up the initial point. This need enough coverage to warrant being a separate topic from the main works. Nothing has been shown that it is remotely possible yet. TTN (talk) 12:06, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep Neely is cited in The Fifty Worst Films of All Time -- the book is out of print, sadly, but there is a long chapter on "Valley of the Dolls" and the character. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 11:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep Like TTN, I am also leery of writing character articles from sourcing which do not mean to discuss the character but instead mean to discuss the work. I see no reason why this character is made more or less notable (in other words, is covered more or less in secondary sources) by the coverage of Valley of the Dolls (film) or Valley of the Dolls. However, there are ~12 Scholar sources that seem to cover the character, as well as 10-20 book sources (the majority of the Gbooks list isn't helpful). News sources are mainly film and television reviews, so I'm not digging through those for something meaningful. But this character itself is covered in third party sources. that is what matters. Protonk (talk) 17:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Will anyone add these sources to the article, or shall we see it back at AfD in 6 months? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-administrative closure) – RyanCross (talk) 01:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Munna Bhai

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This character does not establish notability independent of its films. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary content. TTN (talk) 17:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

keep I've never seen an AfD on a character where that character pulls up 700 news articles (click on the link above). Looking at the sources, most of them are about the movie itself, not the character per se. But for example [18] is certainly better than a movie review (it is a serious article asking what exactly the movie (and the main character) tapped into to be so popular. The actor was so popular in the role that he's looking at running for parliament ([19]) and when he's discussed, is in terms of this hugely popular character [20]. I'm going to go out on a very short limb and say this is notable without finding anything better. Hobit (talk) 02:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Strong keep Munnabhai is iconic (in India). Annette46 (talk) 15:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep and refocus Turn this into a series overview article, like is done with Bridget Jones, and everything should be fine. – sgeureka ^t•c 15:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Strong Keep Obviously. --Dwaipayan (talk) 22:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep Shahid • ^Talk2me 14:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 11:40, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. and none likely to emerge. Redirecting or not is an editorial discussion and doesn't need AfD TravellingCari 20:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Emperor Malthazar

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This character does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 17:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep or merge or redirect as appropriate to the importance of the main work--he's the major antagonist. There may be reasons to to have a separate article, but there are not against a redirect. I was about to say what i think of nominations like this when there are preferred alternatives, but anyone who has been here before knows what I think about them. I at least try to indicate in my response that i have actually looked at the article. DGG (talk) 00:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Redirect to Arthur and the Minimoys. Same for the other characters. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 12:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep per DGG. GlassCobra 17:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete No Google hits aside from wiki-mirrors and non-RS. No Gnews hits (all dates archive search). No Book hits. No scholar hits. It is not a good plan for us as editors to make the decision "this is a major character" and "this is not a major character" as a functioning guideline for inclusion. I know we don't have a working compromise for WP:FICT, but it can't be one that allows us to keep an article with 0 third party sources. That gets is, unfortunately, articles like this: full of plot summary and original research. There is no other outcome. I would also appreciate it if people could keep their frustration with TTN out of this debate. We can talk about how there are alternatives to deletion but the fact that those alternatives have not been explored are not reasons to keep the articles. Protonk (talk) 17:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

That's because the character's correct title is simply "Malthazar." Although he is stated to be an emperor in the book, he's never referred to as "Emperor Malthazar" in either the book or the film. Move? --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 18:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Still only gets 3 gnews hits. No books, no scholar. Webhits aren't promising. And if this isn't the title of the character, a redirect isn't helpful. Still saying delete. Protonk (talk) 19:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect to The Big Boss. Content remains available in history for possible merger as sources are found. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Hsiao Mi

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This character does not establish notability independent of its film. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 17:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep or merge as a major character in the first major film by Bruce Lee. Merge perhaps rather than keep as the information is pretty much the same in the main article. At the very least redirect, as for all significant characters in any film of book we include as an article. Certainly at least all the principal characters. I ask the nom, as I have before, to find a reason why a redirect at leas tis not appropriate. DGG (talk) 00:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Merge with The Big Boss, otherwise delete. Annette46 (talk) 15:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 11:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Redirect to The Big Boss. there is no sourced content to merge. I'm sure sources exist in Chinese, but there are no interwikilinks to other language wikis so I can't tell for sure. Protonk (talk) 17:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Stifle (talk) 08:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Tuco (The Ugly)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This character does not establish notability independent of its film. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 17:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep. I cannot imagine that this could not be adequately sourced. It's one of the three major characters in one of the most critically acclaimed films of all time. There are pages upon pages of scholarship on The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly. It is inconceivable that, in those pages, there are not sufficient mentions to establish notability. Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Merge and Redirect to The Good, the Bad and the Ugly. The existing article is all plot summary and OR. Karanacs (talk) 15:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Weak keep, one of the three primary characters of an iconic film. Per Phil Sandifer. Icewedge (talk) 04:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep A whole book exists on the movie and discusses the character to a huge extent. [21]. [22] also looks fine, if less detailed. There are tons of these books... Hobit (talk) 02:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Puzzle Guardian

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This character does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 18:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete, article fails to establish notability and violates WP:NOT#PLot. Karanacs (talk) 15:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete, original research and no sources cited. Stifle (talk) 08:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Redirect to Hellraiser. GlassCobra 17:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete I do not see the point of a redirect for characters without an actual personal name. DGG (talk) 17:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 11:43, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete as the article is incorrect in a few things I just corrected. For instance, the actors authored stated as playing "The guardian" are credited as a character named "derelict". In just a few minutes of checking I discovered a few major errors in this unsourced article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 10:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Crossroads (mini series)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Problematic article with little context and no references, created in 2006 by an editor sharing the series name. I can't find any sources that this US TV series existed. There was a crossroadsseries.com site matching the creator's name, but it expired early 2007. Searches for "Burgandi" with "Crossroads" turn up nothing useful, other searches on unique content names with a crossroads connotation have a similar lack of good results. No substantive content changes had been made since the article's creation date of 29 October 2006, except for addition of a TV stub. I cannot determine if this is an obscure series, a hoax or fictionalization of someone's life, or a failed project, but currently the article fails the core policy of verifiability with no reliable sources. Michael Devore (talk) 19:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete seems likely it was either a hoax or something that totally failed to get off the ground. A real miniseries, even an obscure one, would have at least something out there. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Even if this does exist, it's poorly written, without references. Drmies (talk) 03:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete - probably hoax. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. There's nothing sourced, and as a result there is nothing to merge to the article. Wizardman 12:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Demon (The Cave)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This fictional species does not establish notability independent of its film. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 19:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Merge any useful information in The Cave (film) and then delete. Zero Kitsune (talk) 02:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Merge as the major plot element in the film, the information should be combined--some of it would help explain the signifcance of the film. The name is not distinctive, and I see no need for a redirect.DGG (talk) 18:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 11:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete there isn't any sourced information to move to a target article and the article itself is not a likely search term (due to the disambiguation title). We can't "merge and delete", so why not just delete? Protonk (talk) 17:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wizardman 12:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Tempest & the Diaspora

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Tempest & the Diaspora

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails to assert notability. No Google News hits that mention the subject. Also, the article is written like an essay. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 20:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete - no reliable sources covering this. The sourcing int he article only gives out a magazine name. Assuming I got the right website for the magazines, searches on keyboard magazine, electronic musician magazine, and Metal Edge magazine web sites could not find any hits for Tempest & the Diaspora or on Scottie Owens. -- Whpq (talk) 18:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 03:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete per verifiability probems and lack of reliable sources. The article doesn't establish notability and neither do multiple Google searches for sources. This definitely fails WP:BAND. Cunard (talk) 06:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wizardman 12:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo–Nauru relations

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Speedy was removed so bringing here. Whilst there are articles for bilateral relations, some of which are underdeveloped, we as a project have to look at whether there is a realistic opportunity for development of an article past the fact that two countries recognise each other. There are no political, military, trade, transport or cultural tie between Kosovo and Nauru on which to build an encyclopaedic article.The fact that these two countries recognise each other is noted at International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence and until such time as true bilateral relations emerge, this article, unfortunately, is not notable, with an a distinct possibility that it can't be built into an encyclopaedic entry. (There are other articles in this Kosovo series, such as Burkina Faso, Samoa, etc which could be looked at as well) Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 20:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Most of the "Nauru-.... relations" articles are short like "Nauru-Kosovo relations". Ex: Nauru–Russia relations, Nauru-United Kingdom relations. If we delete all, Nauru won't have any relations articles... --Turkish Flame ^☎ 21:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mr.Z-man 00:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep I think it should be kept so that when the 'encyclopaedic' information comes to light it can be added . 安東尼 TALKies 10:41, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Comment Is the fact of recognition of nationhood status notable in itself? If not, then the article adds nothing to our knowledge about either nation. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete. I remember someone was using AWB or some other script a couple of months back to create X-Y relations for pretty much every country pair, despite that many of the intersections were decidedly trivial. This one looks like it slipped through. Stifle (talk) 08:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Check Special:Contributions/Turkish_Flame. This user created articles for every possible combination. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete as there seems to have been no actual relations to speak of besides the brief statement of recognition quoted in the article. Some of the others created by the same author (example: Senegal–Turkey relations are even worse. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete Bloody far fetched. Annette46 (talk) 15:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete Trivial. Ron B. Thomson (talk) 20:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Comment Feel free to also nominate this, this, this, etc. in a later nom. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 22:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep Most of the bilateral relations articles are stubs like this article. I'm not the only editor who creates short bilateral relations articles. For example: User:Groubani --- Greek-Kenyan relations --Turkish Flame ^☎ 11:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Then this has to be deleted as well. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete An encyclopaedia does not need to have an article on every country pair on the planet discussing their tenuous relations. MvjsTalking 04:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete There are no "relations" between Nauru and Kosovo and Metohija. What happened is the U.S. government demanded that Nauru recognize Kosovo and Metohija. --Tocino 17:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete - Nauru recognises Kosovo (something noted elsewhere). As nothing else exists to indicate the notability of this fact, we need not have an article on the matter. Biruitorul ^Talk 23:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 0 auto; padding: 0 1px 0 0; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; font-size:10px">
-{{Infobox rail
+{| width = "100%"
-| railroad_name=Tuscumbia, Courtland and Decatur Railroad
+|-
-| system_map=DCTMAP.gif
+! width="50%" align="left"  | <font color="gray">&lt;</font> [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 October  9|October 9]]
-| map_size=250px
+! width="50%" align="right" |  [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 October  11|October 11]] <font color="gray">&gt;</font>
-| locale=[[North Alabama]]
+|}
-| start_year=1832
+</div>
-| end_year=1850
+<div align = "center">'''[[Wikipedia:Guide to deletion|Guide to deletion]]'''</div>
-| hq_city=
+{{Cent}}
-| gauge=
+<small>{{purge|Purge server cache}}</small>
-}}
+__TOC__
-Incorporated on January 13, 1832, the '''Tuscumbia, Courtland and Decatur Railroad''' was a [[railroad]] in [[Alabama]], the [[United States]].
+<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MedExpress Urgent Care}}
-The Tuscumbia, Courtland and Decatur Railroad ran from [[Decatur, Alabama|Decatur]] in [[Morgan County, Alabama|Morgan County]] through the northern half of [[Lawrence County, Alabama|Lawrence County]] through [[Courtland, Alabama|Courtland]], then into [[Colbert County, Alabama|Colbert County]] and ended in [[Tuscumbia, Alabama]] where it connected to the [[Tuscumbia Railway Company]].
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Computers for kids}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Worrow}}
-Construction began in mid-1832, the first segment between Tuscumbia and [[Leighton, Alabama|Leighton]] was completed in November of that year.  Traffic between those two cities began at the day of completion.  The second segment between Leighton and Decatur was completed in June 1834.<ref>http://www.cityoftuscumbia.org/Our_History/index.html</ref>
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lorelei (bondage model)}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. joseph school of san jose city}}
-Construction was speedy because of the large cotton industry in [[North Alabama]].  Barges could not pass through the rapids caused by the Shoals along the [[Tennessee River]] between Florence, and Decatur.  The Shoals Canal was congested and the state pursued funding for a railroad between The Shoals and the calmer waters in Decatur.
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aamir Ghauri}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Worrow}}
-In 1850 it was incorporated into the [[Memphis and Charleston Railroad]] which eventually merged into the [[Southern Railway (US)|Southern Railway]], a predecessor of Norfolk Southern. The line is still in operated by [[Norfolk Southern Railway]] and serves as a vital railroad link between [[The Shoals]], and the city of Decatur.
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Potter and the Hall of Elders' Crossing (2nd nomination)}}
-== References ==
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/N. Nomurai}}
-{{Reflist}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hexism}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parramatta Citadel Band}}
-== See also ==
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Breaking Down Boundaries}}
-* [[Oldest railroads in North America]]
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Dark Wielder}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Speed racer pass}}
-== External links ==
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lorne Gershuny}}
-* [http://oldrailhistory.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=320&Itemid=356 Old Rail History Website listing with details and map]
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2006 Winter Olympics highlights (2nd nomination)}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ValoreBooks.com}}
-{{North Alabama Landmarks}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sudden Attack}}<!--Relisted-->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Plea for Purging}}<!--Relisted-->
-[[Category:Defunct Alabama railroads]]
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Creighton the Cretin (2nd nomination)}}
-[[Category:Landmarks in Alabama]]
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Perkins' 14}}
-[[Category:Morgan County, Alabama]]
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slipknot Demo}}<!--Relisted-->
-[[Category:Lawrence County, Alabama]]
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Winnie the Pooh (song)}}<!--Relisted-->
-[[Category:Colbert County, Alabama]]
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cake Bake Betty}}<!--Relisted-->
-[[Category:Huntsville-Decatur Combined Statistical Area]]
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Journalism and public intellectuals}}<!--Relisted-->
-[[Category:Decatur, Alabama]]
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neely O'Hara}}<!--Relisted-->
-[[Category:Decatur Metropolitan Area]]
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Munna Bhai}}<!--Relisted-->
-[[Category:Florence-Muscle Shoals Metropolitan Area]]
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emperor Malthazar}}<!--Relisted-->
-[[Category:Predecessors of the Southern Railway (U.S.)]]
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hsiao Mi}}<!--Relisted-->
-[[Category:Railway companies established in 1832]]
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tuco (The Ugly)}}<!--Relisted-->
-[[Category:Railway companies disestablished in 1847]]
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Puzzle Guardian}}<!--Relisted-->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crossroads (mini series)}}<!--Relisted-->
-{{Alabama-stub}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Demon (The Cave)}}<!--Relisted-->
-{{US-rail-stub}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tempest & the Diaspora}}<!--Relisted-->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kosovo–Nauru relations}}<!--Relisted-->