Whitewright Independent School District and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 October 10: Difference between pages

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 20:46, 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 Speedily deleted by Stwalkerster. Non-admin closure. TN‑X-Man 22:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Michael Palao

Speedy tag contested by an IP, with the edit summary "its been up and fine for nearly 4 hours so why is there a need for a speedy deletion?". Article is about a professor that does not show why he is notable. No sources provided, none found. TN‑X-Man 20:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Speedy delete, fails WP:PROF. A Google News Archive search returns two results that do not pertain to this individual. Google has barely heard of this individual. The article does not assert any notability and there are no reliable sources to be found, so I'm tagging re-tagging the article for speedy deletion. Cunard (talk) 21:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Speedy Delete per above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Banime (talk • contribs) 21:16, 10 October 2008 UTC
delete the page then i've had enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by One Gig Of Ram (talk • contribs) 21:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Pity As I wanted to ;earn if this was THIS Mike Paolo: "Palao, Mike 1976, "Dominic James 'Nick' LaRocca. Dixieland Jazz Pioneer." Reprinted from Italian-American Digest, March." Now that the article has been speedied... and the author gone and unhappy.... I may never know. Pity that more newcomers don't understand better about their user space. A quck tag and faster deletion must be quite disconcerting. Was there really such a rush? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

No, it wasn't that Mike Palao. The article was about a teacher who began teaching at his local high school in 2002. He had no other accomplishments so that's zero notability. Cunard (talk) 21:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Can the admin who closes this AfD take a look at the deleted contents to make sure that "Michael Palao" is indeed a high school teacher who is non-notable and does not meet CSD#A7, in case I've confused this individual with someone else? Cunard (talk) 22:00, 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. Stifle (talk) 08:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Paco Zamora

Previously PRODed, so AFD is the correct venue. I have not been able to locate any evidence that he meets WP:ENTERTAINER (there would be at least a few sources if he has "a large fan base or a significant "cult" following" or "made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment") or the primary criteria at WP:N in that there are not enough reliable sources to write a fair and balanced article on him with verifiable information. I am open to having my mind changed on this article, particularly as there is a potential for a language/resource barrier. As it stands, however, it does not appear to meet the WP:N standard (non-trivial coverage in multiple, reliable, third party sources) and nothing aside from a list of his films can be verified about him.

I do realize that Google searching turns up results, but few of them actually relate to this individual. If there was a little more information than just a copy of his IMDB profile, I might support a merge to Cinema of the Philippines but, as it stands now, that would be kind of pointless. Cheers, CP 20:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

SPEEDY DELETE This man is a contemporary of Oscar del Rosario (see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Óscar del Rosario), and like del Rosario, he was born in 1905, entered films back before "talkies", survived the Japanesse Occupation of the Phillipines, and created a film career among the grief of war. His early film career will be impossible to source as almost all such hardcopy verifications were destoyed during that occupation. What records of his existance survive that pre-1945 time are based only upon those evidences that existed and survived outside the Philipines. The Oscar del Rosario article was cut/pasted from WikiPilipinas. The Paco Zamora article is a cut/paste as well. Though there is apparently less concern at WikipiliPinas for sourcing... that is no excuse to move those articles over here without consideration of sources. There could be sources in Tagalog... but why bring it here? There should be no time wasted in discussions at AfD... as this is indentical situation in all but name to the deletion of Óscar del Rosario and will suffer the same fate. I admire these men and what they endured. Pity that Wikipedia will not be part of their legacy. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English sources - Tagalog sources would be acceptable if English ones can't be found. the wub "?!" 11:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

- - So okay.. where are the Tagolog-reading editors? A little help... ? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment WikiPilipinas copied its articles from Wikipedia under GFDL. It would be a bad idea to source an article using WikiPilipinas alone. --Lenticel ^(talk) 15:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree and that's why I said Speedy. If its there... fine... their choice. If its here, sources have been lost to time and war... and although one can claim notability is not temporary, and although this person may have goten a great deal of press back before WW2... such sources are difficult, if not impossible, to find in English... cannot now be shown to have existed (although logic would dictate they once did) and the article cannot stay on Wiki English with only an AGF that sources might have once existed. And I'll double-check the article dates to see just who coppied from whom. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

And yes... the various articles on Filipino actors/directors have been here since 2006 and were cut/pasted to WikiPilipinas in 2007. At least the Paco Zamora article will survive there when it gets deleted here, as there is a pride there in the accomplishments of one's fellow citizens surviving great hardship that give make it for them worth including. Wikipedia encourages WP:IAR, and even grants that in some cases exceptions may be made in the guidelines for the further improving of Wiki... but I do not think this will survive the AfD... no more than did the article on Oscar del Rosario. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete as failing verifiability. If sources exist, then it can be recreated, but wikipedia isn't a memorial for alleged war survivors who allegedly made some films. Being in a war does not make one inherently notable, or most of the worlds population could have articles; sources are needed here the same as all other articles, especially controversial biographies.Yobmod (talk) 16:46, 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. MBisanz ^talk 15:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Max Sanders

Per WP:BLP1E, no evidence of lasting notability. Prod tag removed by author. Recommend Delete. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 20:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

DELETE as a one-hit-wonder... though he may well be back. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
DELETE Let's not encourage this immature behavior. Dennis Fernkes (talk) 12:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete: Someone that is only notable for one event. Schuym1 (talk) 20:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:24, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:24, 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 speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 04:43, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Artimus Pyledriver

NN band, no evidence of passing WP:MUSIC, no WP:RS Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 20:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:29, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:46, 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. Coren 23:16, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Derek Deakins

No sources found. Only assertation of notability is that he has played for other artists, but notability is not inherited. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Comment Copied from talk page: "I think side man musicians are important in documenting any kind of music. Derek has played with two well-known groups in country music. I think there need to be more articles on sidemen because they are the ones that make the big stars sound good and nobody ever knows who they are unless you can read about them somewhere." Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 15:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 15:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete unsourced and unreferenced --Dreamspy (talk) 19:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Fix article and restart AFD Something has messed up the article so the references are hidden, but, they're there - edit it and you see them. I wasn't able to fix it, maybe an admin must do it. Till then anyone who claims it is unreferenced should be disregarded, since, the references are present but not showing up properly. Felisse (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC).
- I think the ref tags have been screwed up actually. Stifle (talk) 12:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 21:59, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete--I agree with the nominator. Tone and most of the content already aren't appropriate, but there is also a lack of notability. Drmies (talk) 22:57, 19 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 Snowball Keep -- yes, high schools are considered notable and this article deserves to stay. (Non-admin closure)Ecoleetage (talk) 23:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Wake Forest-Rolesville High School

unreferenced article about a public high school which fails to establish it's notability. Rtphokie (talk) 19:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep - high school for which sources are available to meet WP:N. TerriersFan (talk) 19:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - what verifiable 3rd sources are available? The article currently has none.--Rtphokie (talk) 19:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
  - Comment - what counts are the sources available after a news, web, books and scholar search not what is currently in the page. Please explain the searching you carried out, as you would have been expected to do before nomination, and the results. TerriersFan (talk) 19:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep I'm seeing many articles on a google news search. Just a couple [1][2]--Cube lurker (talk) 19:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep Plenty of sources to establish notability. Cunard (talk) 19:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 20:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
keep we normally keep high schools. needs improved content, but that's not an AfD issue.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Definite speedy keep as this article should have never been brought to AfD. Though it is always preferred, an article does not have to prove its own notability. That notability exists online, and can be easily found by a reader is good enough. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep per above and high schools are generally notable. --Banime (talk) 23:42, 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 Snowball Keep(Non-admin closure) High schools are considered notable on Wikipedia, so Sanderson High School makes the grade. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Sanderson High School

article about a public high school which fails to establish it's notability. Lacks verifiable 3rd party references. Consists mostly of lists of classes, athletics and extra curricular activities. Rtphokie (talk) 19:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep - high school for which sources are available to meet WP:N. TerriersFan (talk) 19:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep Plenty of sources to establish notability. Cunard (talk) 19:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep Sources are out there. [3]--Cube lurker (talk) 19:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 20:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 20:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
keep some people don't like it, but high school areticles are generally keepers.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Definite speedy keep as this article should have never been brought to AfD. Though it is always preferred, an article does not have to prove its own notability. That notability exists online, and can be easily found by a reader, is good enough. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep per above and high schools are generally notable. --Banime (talk) 23:42, 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 Snowball Keep Yes, high schools are notable on Wikipedia. Okay, kids, back to class! (Non-admin closure) Ecoleetage (talk) 00:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Cary High School

unreferenced article about a public high school which fails to establish it's notability. Consists mostly of lists of classes, athletics and extra curricular activities. Rtphokie (talk) 19:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Strong keep - high school for which sources are available to meet WP:N. The nominator failed to mention that, also, this is a Blue Ribbon School. TerriersFan (talk) 19:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep AFD is not cleanup. Plenty of sources to establish notability. Cunard (talk) 19:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep Per TerriersFan--Cube lurker (talk) 19:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 20:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep and clean up. This is a Blue Ribbon School.[4] • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
keep we normally keep high school articles--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Definite speedy keep as this article should have never been brought to AfD. Though it is always preferred, an article does not have to prove its own notability. That notability exists online, and can be easily found by a reader is good enough. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep per above and high schools are generally notable. --Banime (talk) 23:42, 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 Snowball Keep (Non-admin closure) High schools are notable, as per Wikipedia standards. Go, Panther Creek! Ecoleetage (talk) 00:08, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Panther Creek High School

unreferenced article fails to establish why this high school is notable. Consists mostly of lists of athletics and extra curricular activities. Rtphokie (talk) 19:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep - high school for which sources are available to meet WP:N. TerriersFan (talk) 19:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep Plenty of sources to establish notability. Cunard (talk) 19:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep Sources are available [5]--Cube lurker (talk) 19:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 20:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 20:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Definite speedy keep as this article should have never been brought to AfD. Though it is always preferred, an article does not have to prove its own notability. That notability exists online, and can be easily found by a reader is good enough. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep per above and high schools are generally notable. --Banime (talk) 23:42, 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 Snowball Keep (Non-admin closure) An article about a high school is (A) notable, (b) not notable, (c) a refugee from Facebook. The answer is...A. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Apex High School

unreferenced article fails to establish why this high school is notable. Consists mostly of class and extra curricular activity lists. Rtphokie (talk) 19:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep - high school for which sources are available to meet WP:N. TerriersFan (talk) 19:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep Plenty of sources to establish notability. Cunard (talk) 19:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep Per above and searches on other schools in this AFD batch.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 20:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 20:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Definite speedy keep as this article should have never been brought to AfD. Notability exists online, and can be easily found by a reader is good enough. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep per above and high schools are generally notable. --Banime (talk) 23:42, 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 Snowball Keep (Non-admin closure). If you paid attention in Wiki class, you would recall that high schools are considered notable. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Millbrook High School (North Carolina)

unreferenced article fails to establish why this high school is notable. Consists mostly of lists of extra curricular activities. Rtphokie (talk) 19:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep - high school for which sources are available to meet WP:N. TerriersFan (talk) 19:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep Plenty of sources to establish notability. Cunard (talk) 19:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep Per above and searches on other schools in this AFD batch.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 20:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Definite speedy keep as this article should have never been brought to AfD. Though it is always preferred, an article does not have to prove its own notability. That notability exists online, and can be easily found by a reader is good enough. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep per above and high schools are generally notable. --Banime (talk) 23:42, 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 redirect to Wake County Public School System#Middle schools (6-8). , text is under the re-direct if anyone wants to do the merge. TravellingCari 21:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Centennial Campus Middle School

unreferenced article fails to establish why this middle school is notable. Rtphokie (talk) 19:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Merge/redirect to Wake County Public School System#Middle schools (6-8) per accepted practice. TerriersFan (talk) 19:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Merge/redirect per TerriersFan. Cunard (talk) 19:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Merge/redirect As above, best way to handle middle schools.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 20:03, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Merge per above. And what is with this scythe cutting through High School articles???Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:16, 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 Snowball Keep (non-admin closure) This "magnet" sticks because high schools are considered notable subject matter. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Garner Magnet High School

unreferenced article fails to establish why this high school is notable. Rtphokie (talk) 19:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep - high school for which sources are available to meet WP:N. TerriersFan (talk) 19:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep Plenty of sources to establish notability. Cunard (talk) 19:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep Per above and searches on other schools in this AFD batch.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 20:03, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 20:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Definite speedy keep per all the above. This article should have never been brought to AfD. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep per above and high schools are generally notable. --Banime (talk) 23:43, 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 Snowball Keep (non-admin closure) because high schools are notable as Wikipedia subject matter. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Leesville Road High School

unreferenced article fails to establish why this high school is notable. Rtphokie (talk) 19:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep - high school for which sources are available to meet WP:N. TerriersFan (talk) 19:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep Plenty of sources to establish notability. Cunard (talk) 19:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep Per above and searches on other schools in this AFD batch.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:03, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 20:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Definite speedy keep per all the above. This article should have never been brought to AfD. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep It has some sourcing already, from the school handbook/FAQ and it could easily be expanded further. Tiger Khan (talk) 23:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Comment isn't the school handbook a primary source? 3rd party sources are necessary to demonstrate notability.--Rtphokie (talk) 23:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep per above and high schools are generally notable. --Banime (talk) 23:40, 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 Snowball Keep (non-admin closure) I said it before and I will say it again: high schools are considered notable subject matter on Wikipedia. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Wakefield High School (Raleigh, North Carolina)

unreferenced article fails to establish why this high school is notable. Consists largely of class lists, schedules, athletics lists, and theater and marching band performance lists Rtphokie (talk) 19:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep - high school for which sources are available to meet WP:N. TerriersFan (talk) 19:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep Plenty of sources to establish notability. Cunard (talk) 19:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep Per above and searches on other schools in this AFD batch.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 20:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Definite speedy keep per all the above. This article should have never been brought to AfD. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep Per above, most high schools are notable. --Banime (talk) 23:39, 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 Snowball Keep (non-admin closure) because high schools are considered notable on Wikipedia. Class dismissed! Ecoleetage (talk) 00:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Middle Creek High School

Completing unfinished nom. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:41, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep - high school for which sources are available to meet WP:N. TerriersFan (talk) 19:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep Plenty of sources to establish notability. Cunard (talk) 19:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep Per above and searches on other schools in this AFD batch.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 20:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep Most high schools are generally notable. --Banime (talk) 21:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Definite speedy keep per all the above. This article should have never been brought to AfD. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:19, 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. TravellingCari 21:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Tiny Cracker Zoo

Non-notable book per WP:BK Wareh (talk) 18:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete non-notable book by non-notable author. A Google News Archive search returns no results. A Google search returns only search results from websites that are trying to sell the book. Cunard (talk) 19:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete: I couldn't find any reliable sources. Schuym1 (talk) 15:36, 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. delete, but it's a valid search term for the band, so I will re-direct it following deletion. TravellingCari 21:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The Nomads

Not Notable article. All links to this page are meant for The Nomads (band). InsaneZeroG (talk) 18:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete Google shows no relevant hits. All the hits listed are about other numerous basketball teams named The Nomads. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 22:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete - no reliable sources to establish notability - Whpq (talk) 14:35, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:41, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

DeathStation 9000

Unreferenced and non notable usenet joke term. Ref 1 is not about the DS9K, Ref 2 is just a joke site MickMacNee (talk) 17:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete Gets just 75 Google hits, which is awfully weak for something originating online. Nothing that looks even remotely like a reliable source, either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete per Starblind. Mvjs Talking 00:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep gets 648 hits is you use google to search usenet, which is where it originated, and is still in frequent current use [6]. Mission Fleg (talk) 02:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Strong keep per Mission Fleg. Usenet is, by its nature, less searchable and referenceable than many other sources and this is definitely worth keeping. Stifle (talk) 10:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Comment, hmmm, a programmer joke from USENET.... Is this term older than August 1998? I see 1,280 hits on Google (Groups). 774 of those are the quote "I ran it on my DeathStation 9000 and demons flew out of my nose" in a sig[7]. Perhaps the "DeathStation 9000" is well-known among readers of comp.lang.c, but most editors seem to subscribe to the idea that USENET is not a reliable source. Some say Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Is it for terms made up on USENET a decade ago? --Pixelface (talk) 08:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- From Usenet#Usenet_terms, I only found FWAK which comes anywhere near in terms of unreferenced usenet jokiness. Not even enough material to justify a List of Usenet humour MickMacNee (talk) 14:50, 14 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) 00:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete Could be summed up in two sentences, and thus not worth an article. IRK!_{Leave me a note or two} 01:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete Anything that can be sourced only to Usenet is not notable, I'm sure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 01:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
strong delete- basic google hits make no odds. Anyone can write anything on usenet and on the internets. No reliable sources exist at all, no mentions in newspapers,[8] books [9] or in academic papers, of course.:)[10] Sticky Parkin 02:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete- the otters speak wisely. This concept is mildly amusing but, in the end, just something made up one day. Reyk _YO! 02:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Comment interesting, i didnt realise usenet was viewed so poorly. before there was a wikipedia or even a www thoughtful people such as yourselves :) used to hang out there. indeed wikipedia is absolutely dripping with usenet/unix/c/hacker culture. but anyway i digress, i only wish to address the idea that DS9K is only a joke term, sure theres some humour there but it addresses a real issue, which is that newbie c programmers are often completely thrown by the idea that there is something undefined within the language (the infamous 'i = i++;' statement [11]) it just doesnt fit their (newbie) worldview, they're used to the idea that they have complete control of the operating system and the language. so to get across the idea that sometimes they dont, they really really dont, takes a little exaggeration. finally, as to 'Anyone can write anything on usenet', sure, anyone can write anything here too, it gets corrected tho, and its the same with groups such as comp.lang.c. cheers Mission Fleg (talk) 04:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- We aready have an article on Undefined behavior, so this argument is only realy a case for retaining the term as a protected (i.e. not expandable into an article) redirect to act as a search term. MickMacNee (talk) 14:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, maybe wikipedia does have elements of usenet because people can technically write anything, however, that's why we don't use wikis or wikipedia itself as a reliable source to reference articles. Sticky Parkin 15:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep DS9K gets 2320 hits on google [12] Too Old (talk) 05:17, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Most of the hits on google are from bloggers or false positives. Usenet is not a reliable source, so I don't see DS9K meeting notability. Malinaccier (talk) 02:24, 19 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 15:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Burger Chef murders

Doesn't seem to be notable. Only one source, WP:NOT#NEWS. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep an unsolved multiple murder with 4 victims is notable enough. Sources need to be updated. DGG (talk) 18:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Weak keep For the express purpose of "give it a chance"- looks notable enough, but desperately needs rewriting. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep. After 30 years, it is STILL in the news... and since notability is not temporary, it should stay. Agree that article needs updating. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep per this, in particular. Apparently still the subject of media interest more than a quarter-century later. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:01, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep but rewrite Notable? Yes! But the pulpy writing (especially that last paragraph) is a bit much. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:57, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:40, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep, surely this would have gotten considerable press coverage, at least locally, at the time. Everyking (talk) 00:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep with citations. The article seems to assert its notability but, especially on such a touchy subject, needs to be backed up by citations. Mvjs Talking 08:38, 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.

894 (number)

The result was Speedily deleted by Barneca. Non-admin closure. TN‑X-Man 18:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this warrants a separate article. It's an unlikely search term and the reference provided is a magazine won't be published until six days from now. TN‑X-Man 17:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The magazine was published before the cover date. In America, the cover date on magazines reflects the date the magazine goes off the stands, not the publication date (which may be weeks or even months before the cover date.

The American people deserve and need to know the facts. Das Baz, aka Erudil 17:51, 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 Speedily deleted by Barneca. Non-admin closure. TN‑X-Man 18:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

899 (number)

Contested prod. I'm not sure why this warrants a separate article, or even why anyone would search for this term. Reference is for a magazine whose publishing date is six days from now. TN‑X-Man 17:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

In America, the date on the cover reflects the date the magazine goes off the stand, not the date of publication, which may be from a week to a month before the cover date. This is a very important fact in contemporary American history, and it deserves to be known. The American people deserve and need to know this. All numbers should have their own page. 899 no less than other numbers. Das Baz, aka Erudil 17:49, 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. Stifle (talk) 08:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The Best of The Dogg

Unsourced article on forthcoming album. No independent reliable sources provided, none found. Mdsummermsw (talk) 17:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete. No claim of notability in article, WP:CRYSTAL issues.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:28, 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 21:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete. I cant see anything that would indicate this is anything but a hoax. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 22:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums & WP:CRYSTAL. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:31, 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 Speedily deleted by User:Woody, G11, non-admin closure.. ukexpat (talk) 18:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Eleftherios Arelis

Notability - no references to back it. Reads like a CV, Suspect article was created by the subject or a person known to them Mfield (talk) 17:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Speedy delete per G11 as promotional puff pieces. So nominated. ukexpat (talk) 17:33, 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. TravellingCari 21:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Dimitris Papadatos

Unreferenced piece with continuing COI issues. No notability established. Mfield (talk) 17:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

NOTE: ARTICLE NOT TAGGED Johnbod (talk) 15:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

retagged Mfield (talk) 17:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Speedy delete per A7, no assertion of significance or importance. So nominated. ukexpat (talk) 17:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Weak delete but not speedy. Asserts some notability through multiple exhibitions of the artworks. Inadequate references to keep, but enough to justify a discussion in the hope someone can find them in the 5 days.DGG (talk) 18:04, 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 Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:29, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete exhibition history not enough to attain notability. Johnbod (talk) 15:27, 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 keep. Stifle (talk) 08:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Khar-polis

Contested PROD. WP is not a game guide or a how-to manual, and only source is to a general games page on the Persian WP. GlassCobra 17:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep : Almost every entity in the list of Games of physical skill is identical to this one.WP:GAMEGUIDE maybe used in modern games , but folkloric games is not the same as video games and etc. --Alborz Fallah (talk) 20:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep : As Alborz Fallah. I'll remove the "strategy" section and add an "unreferenced" template.--Parthian Scribe (talk) 16:39, 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. MBisanz ^talk 15:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Three Perfect Laws of Life

Fails Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Possibly original research. Jll (talk) 16:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete as non-notable and unverifiable. Only google hits for "Three Perfect Laws of Life" are this article. No hits on Google news, Google Blog search, Google Books, or Google Groups. Silverfish (talk) 17:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete as quickly as possible. Drmies (talk) 18:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete as apparently deep thoughts someone made up one day. WillOakland (talk) 08:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
The fourth law not everything gets to stay on Wikipedia. Delete. Mandsford (talk) 16:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete Per nom. MvjsTalking 09:48, 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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 08:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Sandy Hoffmann

Non-notable figure skater, fails WP:V. At age 15, she's never even competed in senior nationals, which means she fails the WP:ATHLETE criterion of competing at the "highest level of amateur sport." With only 24 unique G-hits [13], almost exclusively Wiki mirrors and figure skating websites, there are no reliable sources evident that would fulfill the general notability criteria. Prod removed by creator without comment. RGTraynor 16:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep meets the general notability guidelines with significant coverage in Sachsische Zeitung one of Dresden's two major newspapers, [14],[15],[16]and [17]. RMHED (talk) 20:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Response: The first article is two paragraphs long. The second is an article on that particular competition; Hoffmann is not the subject. The third is an article on a show by a local ice skating club, and Hoffman's sole presence in the article is that the photo accompanying it has her in it. The final link is another article concerning another competition in which she appeared. All are trivial mentions. Did you read through all of them first? RGTraynor 21:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I would say that two paragraphs in a major regional newspaper combined with the other mentions is enough to meet the general notability guidelines. RMHED (talk) 21:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep. I concur with User:RMHED. The subject meets the general notability guidelines per guidelines for notability (persons). One cannot expect The Washington Post to do an in-depth reprt on iceskating. The sources pointed out by User:RMHED are reliable sources independent of the event. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

One can indeed expect the Post to do indepth bios on individual figure skaters, something that happens frequently, but beyond that, the answer to the frequently-asked question on Wikipedia "But no one's writing substantive articles in the mainstream media about my subject!!" is "Then WP:V dictates the subject does not merit an article." RGTraynor 16:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete The sources are about the event, not the individual, which means they fail the need to be non-trivial. -Djsasso (talk) 15:48, 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. MBisanz ^talk 15:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Steven Disraeli

Appears to be a hoax. Sources don't even mention a person by this name. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete Fails verifiability. Edison (talk) 16:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom, as a load of tosh. If "Law enforcement agencies including Scotland Yard, Interpol, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP-GRC) and United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) have no active files on Disraeli" then he probably fails WP:Notability too. It is nice of these organisations to open their files so freely! Perhaps it just takes a phone call along the lines of "Look, I am writing this Wikipedia article..." for them to look someone up for you. Jll (talk) 16:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Please Delete. Hoax, yes. Drmies (talk) 18:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Undead Warrior (talk) 19:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete, hoax. Funny how the two Mark Felt interviews listed as sources don't mention his name. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 23:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete as a blatant WP:HOAX. A search for Steven Disraeli finds only Wikipdeia and an ad] for "Even Steven Revenge Consulting". Googling "Even Steven Revenge Consulting" one finds these same two links plus only one more... to "getsteven.com - the "Official" website. What a hoot. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Comment - Undead warrior tagged the article as a CSD:G3 candidate. It's not pure vandalism even if it is a hoax so I've declined the CSD. Let the AfD proceed. — X S G 17:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete as per everyone. Hoaxalicious. Edward321 (talk) 03:24, 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 redirect to Erickson Air-Crane. MBisanz ^talk 15:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Erickson Air-Crane Admin Offices Heliport

Fails WP:N and WP:RS hard. Nothing to merge with at all. Just a private heliport for some business. Delete Undead Warrior (talk) 16:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Undead Warrior (talk) 16:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. -- Undead Warrior (talk) 16:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Merge to Erickson Air-Crane, heliport fails WP:N. Aboutmovies (talk) 16:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Merge to Erickson Air-Crane. Katr67 (talk) 17:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Merge to Erickson Air-Crane (this is getting a little repetitive, no?) Ecoleetage (talk) 11:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Merge to Erickson Air-Crane, a little private heliport does not merit an encyclopaedia article. MvjsTalking 00:39, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete Consensus shown by AfD records is that private-use airports are verifiable via FAA airport records but fail WP:N unless they have other WP:RS specifically about them. This one fails by those criteria. I wrote an essay expanding on private-use airports failing notability at User:Ikluft/essay/Private-use airports. Ikluft (talk) 09:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Redirect to Erickson Air-Crane#Heliport. No notability on its own. --Dual Freq (talk) 18:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Comment Now that I think about it, I don't know why a merge would be good either. A private heliport is not able to be used by the public. It has no sources on it. How is it encyclopedic? Undead Warrior (talk) 15:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- On this one, Delete, Redirect or Merge are basically synonymous recommendations because a more-than-adequate mention of the heliport has already been added to Erickson Air-Crane. The result in any of these cases will be a redirect pointing from here to there. Ikluft (talk) 17:48, 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. and none likely to emerge. Merging or not is an editorial discussion that doesn't require further AfD and there's no consensu to delete TravellingCari 21:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

St. Elizabeth Hospital Heliport

Fails WP:N and WP:RS. Possible merge, but if there is no article about the hospital, delete. The previous AfD for this one was based off of a general feeling about inherent notability which has been changed. Undead Warrior (talk) 15:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Undead Warrior (talk) 15:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. -- TravellingCari 16:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Merge to St. Elizabeth Health Services, which I just created. The hospital is surely slightly more notable than the heliport. Katr67 (talk) 18:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I would totally oppose merging this to the Baker County, Oregon article as suggested in the previous afd, though it might make sense to merge the hospital article there. Katr67 (talk) 19:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The hospital article is going to need some reliable sources which are specifically about the hospital in order to achieve notability of its own. So far I don't see it. I'm not ruling out that it may exist. I did a Google search and found many mentions of the facility. Most seemed to be derived from databases of hospitals. Newspaper articles or something from the local governments specifically about the facility would work if you can find them. Ikluft (talk) 18:53, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment Anyone who hasn't looked at the hospital article lately, please look at it again. Note I've never had any of my articles deleted for non-notability. (Or any other reason.) Katr67 (talk) 22:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

KeepThe previous AfD, from two months ago, got it right. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment Your rationale's keep failing to provide anything decent to these discussions. There is a CONSENSUS on the aviation page that states pages like these are to be deleted or merged. The last AfD had comments comparable to jokes. The last AfD had nothing right. Undead Warrior (talk) 02:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Please focus on content and not contributor -- I am not the subject of this discussion and your attempt to put the spotlight on me does not help your cause (though, of course, I loooooove the attention -- who wants my autograph?). Your opinion on the last AfD is strictly an opinion, not a fact. And if there is a CONSENSUS (as opposed to a consensus) on another page about this article, then the people from that other page should bring their consensus here, yes? Ecoleetage (talk) 11:01, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

That would be ideal if they would bring their opinions here, but, I cannot notify that project due to people who would call that canvassing. Either way, places of transportation are not inherently notable. Nothing is. (Schools are borderline) Every wikipedia article must pass WP:RS and WP:N. When there is a template to put on an aviation page that includes the three sources, the ones that are on every page related to airports, that should ring a bell that the sites aren't really the best. They are just directory listings. Wikipedia is not a directory. Undead Warrior (talk) 17:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

No one recommended canvassing. I pointed out that your argument that the consensus on the aviation page is irrelevant to this discussion. Ecoleetage (talk) 14:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Just trying to help here... I can see UW's wording didn't seem to work for E, but does show frustration on UW's part. I understood the intent as UW asking E to provide clearer description of the reasoning behind the statements as WP:Consensus and WP:POLLS recommend. This needs to be a discussion, not just casting votes. Knowing the editor's thoughts behind a conclusion, rather than just the conclusion, helps us to meaningfully discuss the matter. Ikluft (talk) 19:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, but why the frustration? It is just a discussion on the merits of an article about a heliport. I know this is not a vote but a !vote. I thought I made it clear that the last AfD (which was only two months ago) offered a satisfactory conclusion to the previously-debated question and that there was no reason to revisit the subject. I hope that helps. Ecoleetage (talk) 03:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Your comment on the previous AfD was just in agreement to the previous person who had voted keep. The keep votes in the last discussion were trying to claim that all places of transportation have inherent notability and that the FAA directory listings were sources enough. As recent discussions have proven, this is not enough by a long shot. Undead Warrior (talk) 15:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

My !vote stands, and I will thank the nominator to cease needling me because I don't agree with him on this particular discussion. Ecoleetage (talk) 22:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not needling you. I'm stating that you never really gave any point as to why it should be kept in either discussion. Undead Warrior (talk) 06:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

That is not correct. If you read the last AfD, I supported keeping the article based solely on the arguments put forth by our Chilean friend. I felt his arguments were succinct -- and rather than repeat them verbatim or try to paraphrase them, I simply stated that my support was based on his presentation. As for this discussion, I still believe the arguments from the last AfD (which was only two months ago) remain valid and that no cogent argument was made to justify removing an article that was closed as Keep so recently. Again, I would ask the nominator to please stop putting a disprortionate focus on my contribution to this discussion. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

People are often asked about their points in AfD. It's an every day thing. You are being asked about yours because you are the only person who is saying keep. It would be the same in any other AfD. Undead Warrior (talk) 14:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment Do you think y'all could take this discussion to your talk pages? Katr67 (talk) 15:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment back Sure! Everyone come on over to my place -- you're all welcome! :) Ecoleetage (talk) 15:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete Consensus shown by AfD records is that private-use airports are verifiable via FAA airport records but fail WP:N unless they have other WP:RS specifically about them. This one fails by those criteria. I wrote an essay expanding on private-use airports failing notability at User:Ikluft/essay/Private-use airports. Ikluft (talk) 09:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Merge to hospital article. No notability on its own, but an article about a hospital would be notable and it is worth noting the presence of a heliport at the hospital. --Dual Freq (talk) 18:56, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- Careful... the hospital article is new and doesn't have WP:RS of its own yet. Unless that gets fixed, it could be up for a prod/AfD of its own shortly. Ikluft (talk) 19:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
  - 100+ years of history and it may be the only hospital in that county. I seriously doubt it could be deleted. --Dual Freq (talk) 19:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
    - Yup, understood. But we all know truth is not Wikipedia's test for notability. It needs WP:RS - and is technically in WP-policy limbo without it. I might add a {{notability}} tag if no one adds any sources soon. Ikluft (talk) 19:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
      - Nevermind... I see you added the sources. So I'll withdraw my note of caution. Ikluft (talk) 19:46, 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 G11 by Athaenara , NAC Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Pix-Yu

This site is in Beta mode. It has also some notability issue: google returns only 1250 hits http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=-site%3Apix-Yu.com+pix-Yu.com&btnG=Search Photoact (talk) 15:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Speedy delete as an advertisement. So tagged. Undead Warrior (talk) 15:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Speedy delete (G11/G12) — Spamalot was a great broadway musical. At least they also didn't engage in copying-and-pasting of copyrighted material right onto the article space, which in layman's terms, is copyright infringement. MuZemike (talk) 16:16, 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 15:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Tree (The Folk Experience)

Nonnotable organiation set in a college in September 2008. Too early for glory, I say. Twri (talk) 15:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Jll (talk) 17:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete, indeed. Drmies (talk) 19:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:31, 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. Stifle (talk) 08:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Mike Gravier

Non-notable minor college football coach, no substantive, independent articles about him. Fails WP:ATHLETE even on the broadest measure (his head coaching career was in NAIA, not at the "highest level of amateur sports"). Prod removed by creator stating "article has been improved and sources added," but the sources are still only from the school in question and not independent, and none establish his notability per WP:BIO or WP:ATHLETE. See prior AfDs at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walter J. West, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ward A. Wescott, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William McCracken, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Max Holm and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J. J. Thiel. Ravenswing 15:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep rather than repeat detailed response, please read my response at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Haslam (football coach) which should apply here as well. Additionall points include reaching quarterfinal playoffs for the NAIA national championships in his first year of coaching, and qualifying for the national championships his last season. His programs were marked by outstanding success on the field. If you have questions, please ask!--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment: He did not, however, coach in the national championships, nor would that qualify someone for an article any more than being the coach of a Little League World Series team would, a post that would also arguably come with "outstanding success on the field." Ravenswing 18:03, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Response yes, he did coach in the national championship tournament for two games in their first appearance and one game in the last appearance. And this is not little league.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

He did not coach in the national championship GAME. As far as WP:ATHLETE holds, it is no different than Little League. Ravenswing 20:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I never said it was the game, it was the tournament. The article is specific. And you really expect us to believe that a football team of 12-year-olds (i.e. little league) could compete toe-to-toe with this group of college players?--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you are deliberately misreading RGT's comments. He never made such a claim, and it would be ridiculous. What matters here is notability, not the size of the players involved. Moreover, RGT didn't say that you said it was the game. The point is, he didn't coach in the championship game, apparently, and if he had, he might/would/could have been more notable than he is now (now, he is not notable). Such intentional obfuscation does not help your case. Drmies (talk) 20:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, arguing in good faith would be a good idea. This is getting a little bit raw. Ravenswing 21:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I would be happy for everyone to make good faith arguments. Please clarify what you meant by "it is no different than Little League." Further, I mean no deliberate misreading and don't like being called a liar (no one does).--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

After going into this on a dozen AfDs or more, do you genuinely need me to spell this stance out yet again? It's terribly simple. WP:ATHLETE specifically and explicitly states that competitors who have played at the "highest level of amateur sports" are notable. NAIA isn't at the highest level of amateur sports. Therefore, as far as meeting WP:ATHLETE is concerned, there's no difference between NAIA, jucos, high schools or an 8-year-olds' T-ball league. They are all equally non-notable. Ravenswing 04:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
It's not about me, it's about any other editor that would come along not familair with your stance. If you really want to discuss generally, then please go the the College Football Notability Essay like I've been asking you for some time now but you flatly refuse.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Pretty much, yes. If you'd like to know why, I'll be happy to discuss that on a talk page. Ravenswing 15:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete--in agreement with RGT, and for the same reason as Kevin Haslam, below. Drmies (talk) 20:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete Per nom. We don't need to go to the CFB/N talk page in order to know that it is an essay that doesn't reflect community standards for inclusion. Protonk (talk) 16:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom. -Djsasso (talk) 15:45, 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) 08:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Dan Hanson

Non-notable minor college football coach and pastor, no substantive, independent articles about him. Fails WP:ATHLETE even on the broadest measure (his head coaching career has been in NAIA, not at the "highest level of amateur sports"). Prod removed by creator stating "article has been improved and sources added," but the sources are still only from the schools in question and not independent, and none establish his notability per WP:BIO or WP:ATHLETE. See prior AfDs at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walter J. West, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ward A. Wescott, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William McCracken, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Max Holm and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J. J. Thiel. Ravenswing 15:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep rather than repeat detailed response, please read my response at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Haslam (football coach) which should apply here as well. If you have questions, please ask!--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete--in agreement with RGT, and for the same reason as Kevin Haslam, below. Drmies (talk) 20:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
delete per nom. Also note conversations in above and below AfD's regarding the reasoning behind the nomination rationale. I feel it is sound. Protonk (talk) 16:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete Clearly doesn't meet WP:ATHLETE as per the nom and arguments on this and the other afd mentioned above. -Djsasso (talk) 15:52, 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) 08:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Kevin Haslam (football coach)

Non-notable minor college football coach and administrator, no substantive, independent articles about him. Fails WP:ATHLETE even on the broadest measure (his head coaching career has been in NAIA and low level colleges, not at the "highest level of amateur sports"), fails the prof test as well. Prod removed by creator stating "article has been improved and sources added," but the sources are still only from the schools in question and not independent, and none establish his notability per WP:BIO, WP:ATHLETE or WP:PROF. See prior AfDs at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walter J. West, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ward A. Wescott, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William McCracken, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Max Holm and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J. J. Thiel. RGTraynor 15:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

keep in general for reasons outlined at the essay discussing college football coaches. But for more detail, see below in a point-by-point response:
- Fails WP:ATHLETE even on the broadest measure (his head coaching career has been in NAIA and low level colleges, not at the "highest level of amateur sports") No clear-cut definition is given at WP:ATHLETE what specifically measures the "highest level of amateur sports" for American football or any other sport. There is an established college football project that has discussed the matter thoroughly and continues to arrive on the conclusion that "college football" is the highest level of the amateur sport and not necessarily "NCAA Division I FBS" football. Reasons include avoiding violaitons of WP:NPOV, WP:NOTBIGENOUGH, and WP:IDONTLIKEIT as well as the benefits of maintaining the data. As a parallel, Wikipedia tends to keep all high school articles, regardless of student population size. There is also additional historical value, the potential merger of the NAIA and the NCAA, that schools sometimes switch from NAIA to NCAA, and teams sometimes compete across the organizing bodies. There are many, many reasons to support the point that NAIA college football programs are among the "highest level" of the sport.
- fails the prof test as well. This is also discussed on the essay in the section 'Academic Standards and how a game can be considered the athletic equivalent to an academic published paper. The essay goes into details that would be redundant to re-print here. Not covered in the essay is the additional point that the subject served as athletic director for at least two schools, which would qualify for criteria #5 "The person holds or has held a named/personal chair appointment... at a major institution of higher education and research." -- I maintain that both "head football coach" and "athletic director" would both be that appointment and meet that requirement.
- Prod removed by creator stating "article has been improved and sources added," but the sources are still only from the schools in question and not independent, Yes the prod was removed, as per recommended procedure and done in good faith. However, a quick survey of the sources show that while school sources are used, there are also sources outside the school: Topeka Capital-Journal, Northern Sun Conference, NJCFCA, and the College Football Data Warehouse.
- and none establish his notability per
  - WP:BIO, Meets basic criteria through multiple independent sources as stated under Bio's Basic critera as well as Additional criteria of a widely recognized contribution of being the founding coach or first football coach and athletic director of the football program at the University of Saint Mary.
  - WP:ATHLETE (discussed above)
  - or WP:PROF. (discussed above)
- See prior AfDs at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walter J. West, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ward A. Wescott, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William McCracken, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Max Holm and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J. J. Thiel These AfD discussions are about other coaches, not this coach. Yes, they can be useful and all editors are welcome to review them. There are also more to review at the college football notability essay Head Coach Notability Discussion Library and on the College Football Project page.
- Additional points: In previous AfD discussions listed above, nominator has accused the project of attempting to sidestep policy by making its own notability policy and expressing that as policy. While this has never been the intention, it is possible that an essay can be mis-interpreted and/or mis-applied as a policy. Please note the intent of the essay is to further enhance, clarify, and discuss policy as it pertains specifically to college football and not to overturn it. The essay provides the additional benefit of having potential repeated discussiosn in one place. Wikipedia encourages writing essays and that has been done (and continues to be done) at the college football project. Also, please note that on many occasions input has been requested from both inside and outside the college football project for feedback on the essay, and very little has been provied on that essay's talk page. This (along with the extended period of time) has given a form of pocket consensus or at least general acceptance of the concepts discussed in the essay. Anyone who would like to contribute to that essay to further assist editors in creating quality articles about college football is welcome to do so.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
  - Reply: Without indulging in an equally rambling counter essay, (1) In terms of college football, the near-unanimous consensus is that "highest level of amateur sports" applies exclusively to Division I NCAA football, the only demurrers being the aforementioned three or four editors at the CFB Wikiproject. NAIA is three rungs below that; (2) Mr. McDonald's sole rationale for Keep on a number of AfDs were "Per CFB:COACH," and when challenged, attempted at first to defend it on the grounds of claiming to have achieved a broad consensus for it; (3) WP:BIO requires that ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail ..." I doubt many (beyond CFB, of course) would agree that a college with 683 undergrads is a "major" anything, or that being the founding coach in a NAIA program that size is a "widely recognized contribution;" (4) That Mr. McDonald feels that "a game can be considered the athletic equivalent to an academic published paper" I don't argue, but I'd wager he'd be met at best with derision if he took that premise to the academic community, most of whom don't publish a dozen academic papers a season; and (5) Mr. McDonald has not hesitated to claim other specific AfDs as consensus, and I'm surprised to hear him now discount the notion. RGTraynor 18:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
    - Questions/Comments:
      - I only made a long entry because you made a long entry. Rather than just respond with short snippets, I thought it best to reply with detail, this way other editors can respond easily. If you would like to pull some of the points of your nomination, I would be happy to reduce my responses.
      - Where is the "near unanimous consensus" on NCAA Div I you mention?
      - The NAIA is not exactly "three rungs below" NCAA Div I. All are college level. 4 years of play in the NAIA makes a player inelligible for any play in NCAA, and vice versa. Players are drafted into the NFL from the NAIA and all levels of the NCAA. Granted, Div I has more money, more audience, and more recognition--but they are the same level in many respects. Popularity does not necessarily equal notability.
      - I made many other statements at other AfDs besides just consensus. Would you really like me to catalog them here in addition to the essay I mentioned?
      - Stating that 683 students is too small shows a clear violation of WP:NOTBIGENOUGH and by arguing that being the founding coach is not a strong enough contribution reeks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Now, if you have a guideline or policy that states that if there were 684 students (or some other larger number) then it would be big enough, would you please bring it up now?
      - Academic papers and games--I'm sure there would be a lot of people in academia who don't like football or sports in general. Is there an English department information director or a Physics department information director?? No? Okay, maybe a Sports information director. Even the smallest of small colleges have that if they have any athletic program at all. Not liking an argument does not make it invalid.
      - More on Academic: And you still haven't addressed the point about criteria #5 where he served both as head coach and athletic director
      - Still more on Academic: even if consensus is that he would ultimately fail the academic test, there's still the sports and bio and all the other parts. The article must fail all of these, not just one and out.
      - I'm not discounting that consensus can be expressed through AfDs, I simply pointed out that you only posted the AfDs that support your point of view. I provided a broader base for editors passing to this discussion to have more information choices.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete--not because he was so eminently unsuccessful, despite the author's attempts to make something out of nothing (he was claimed to be the third-winningest coach at St. Mary's, with one win and seventeen losses--third-winningest out of three!), but because indeed, there is no notability, no publications, nothing of interest except for a few brief passages that report his coming and going at various schools. OH, that business about a game being a paper? That's laughable, and I speak as an academic here. Drmies (talk) 19:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- If a game is like an academic paper, this person, as far as can be established from the article and its sources, wrote 50 papers and received a failing grade on 42 of them. That's not good, though it might be notable in its own right, like the Lanterne Rouge in the Tour de France. Drmies (talk) 19:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
  - As to the concept of relating win-loss to pass fail: If a "win" is a "pass" and a "loss" is a "fail" then I guess so... but is the sole purpose of the game to win? Certainly winning is one of the purposes of competitive sport, but if winning were the only purpose then Harvard University and Yale and the other Ivy League schools would not have competetive sports at all. I suggest having an open mind and leaving a little room for some other purpose or purposes of the sport before rushing to a conclusion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
    - Please let's not get teary-eyed over the philosophical and educational aspects of sports. First of all, I don't get a page on Wikipedia because some of my students went to graduate school. This argument of having an 'open mind' is specious, probably facetious, not to mention irrelevant to the discussion. If you are in sports, and you want to be noted, you must win. By the same token, if you are a coach, you better win games or you'll get fired--which is what happened here. He's not Eddie "The Eagle" Edwards. The guy is simply not notable. Drmies (talk) 17:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
    - Mm ... really, we need a healthy dose of WP:SOAPBOX in the discussion. Wikipedia is not an advocacy forum to put college coaches on an equal academic plateau as researchers, nor are we bound to consider -- indeed, we are bound NOT to consider -- the moral, philosophical or spiritual values of sport in our society in gauging whether a subject passes WP:V or WP:BIO. We have black-letter policy before us, and one simple question to answer: does this subject meet the criteria or does he not? RGTraynor 18:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- Quite. I'm certainly not going to get into a point-by-point slanging match, the more especially given Mr. McDonald's propensity to answer a 100 word deletion rationale with 750 words, but the standard seems to be to buttress a non-notable coaching position at an obscure institution with two or three other non-notable posts at equally obscure institutions. Given the amount of effort he's placed into the many similar articles he's written, I don't blame him for passionately defending them, but the clear, overwhelming and consistent consensus over the last several weeks is that Division III, NAIA or lower college football play just is not notable, and gigantic essays don't overturn that. Three times zero or ten times zero, it still equals zero in the end. RGTraynor 19:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- Right. I support your AfD, and the other two. Drmies (talk) 20:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete We have been over this. Appeals to CFB:COACH against WP:N and WP:ATHLETE don't win the day. A News search with confounding terms removed doesn't leave many promising hits. Protonk (talk) 16:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Question why do you think that CFB:COACH is against WP:N and WP:ATHLETE? Have you read CFB:COACH?--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
  - Of course I have. The essay as written is clearly, unambiguously, and avowedly adversarial toward WP:N and WP:ATLHETE. WP:N says: covered in third party sources in sig. detail. WP:ATHLETE says "played at the highest level of amateur sports==>probably covered in third party sources". Athlete is designed to stop us from deleting articles on Olympians and professional players because we don't see a source readily at hand. Both are a means to an end: creation of articles free from NPOV, BLP and WP:IINFO problems. CFB:COACH says that all coaches, regardless of the level the team plays at, are to be included. This means that an overwhelming majority of biographical articles will not be sourced to biographies or to material that is independent from the subject's employer. As a result we get articles that are merely work histories and win loss records or articles that inflate the importance of the subject. neither result is acceptable. The community requires that we work with an inclusion standard that will basically result in articles that meet our policies. WP:N does that. To a lesser extent, WP:ATHLETE does that. CFB:COACH does not. As written it is NOT a functioning guideline for inclusion. It is a set of arguments to be used in AfD in order to keep the articles that the project wants. Does that answer your question? Protonk (talk) 18:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
    - Exactly; CFB:COACH is, as you say, about 5% "Every man who has ever coached college ball is notable" and 95% "Here's what you say to counter every argument the deletionists over on AfD might throw at you." It's a large part of the reason I've declined Mr. McDonald's kind invitation to go over and debate CFB's criteria: they don't have criteria so much as a polemic. RGTraynor 00:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete Clearly does not meet WP:ATHLETE. -Djsasso (talk) 15:51, 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 Close and rename. (non-admin closure) NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 10:05, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

FXhome EffectsLab

This article may have notable and verifiable content, but I don't think the content is notable enough for its own article. What do you think?. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 15:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep because it has been the subject of independent reviews e.g. [18] and [19], so meets Wikipedia:Notability. Jll (talk) 17:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:32, 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, NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 03:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

~~Very weak~~ keep. Seems to barely reach the notability standard with only one serious review in PC Advisor; the second review is from a site where anyone can add a review. VG ☎ 08:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC) (more sources found) VG ☎ 06:48, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment I have now found reviews at PC Pro [20], Maximum PC [21], Microfilmmaker Magazine [22], Creative Mac [23]. Otest.co.uk, a site I had not come across before, says at [24] that it was reviewed in MacWorld and a magazine called Windows XP Made Easy. If you are searching for other online reviews, be warned that the PC Pro review seems to also surface as Computer Buyer and Computer Shopper; I think that these three titles are all owned by the same parent company. Jll (talk) 18:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Another comment Incidently they all call the product EffectsLab Pro rather than EffectsLab, as does the "official site" link in the article itself so if it does survive this AfD then it needs moving. Jll (talk) 18:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Good job. Please add the references to the article as well. VG ☎ 06:48, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep and rename to EffectsLab Pro per Jll. -- Banjeboi 17:06, 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 Snowball keep, notability has been sufficiently established (non-admin closure). Cunard (talk) 19:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Western Culinary Institute

lacks third party sources to establish notability, fails WP:CORP Michellecrisp (talk) 15:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep: though the article is poorly written—spammy even—I believe the institution itself is plenty notable. It has a huge number of students for a school of this type, and is the most frequently mentioned culinary school in the area, despite there being many community colleges and universities offering culinary arts degrees. —EncMstr (talk) 15:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep and clean up. You should have seen it before we reverted the changes from their PR department. The school was notable before it was taken over by whatever corporation runs it now, and it has a long history in Portland. Aside from the program at Linn-Benton Community College, I believe it is the only culinary school in Oregon. Katr67 (talk) 16:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep - Not only are there third party sources already there, but a quick search (which nominators are supposed to do before listing) turns up many more. Aboutmovies (talk) 16:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep almost 1000 students? Even if it is poorly written, it's certainly notable. Tedder (talk) 16:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep -- maybe a speedy keep? The school is plenty notable, see points above. -Pete (talk) 18:28, 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. Keeper ǀ 76 00:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Herron

Non-notable company. This article has lacked reliable third-party resources since 2006. If not deleted entirely, it should at least be merged into Sigma Pharmaceuticals Limited. Gr0ff (talk) 16:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -192.193.221.202 (talk) 14:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete No sources found. Move Herron (disambiguation) to this title too. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 14:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete--neither notable nor verifiable. Drmies (talk) 20:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Strong Keep, Herron is a major over-the-counter pharmaceutical company in Australia. Should be notable for the 2000 stychnine poisoning affair if nothing else. Coverage here, here, here and here and more here. I would ask the nominator how much time they actually spent looking for sources? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC).
Keep. As well as the sources shown by Lankiveil there are plenty mote at Google Books. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Strong keep as per Lankiveil. Article needs a bit of expansion, few more independent citations but certainly meets WP:CORP. Mvjs Talking 06:34, 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. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 00:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Supersweet

Doesn't seem to be a notable magazine. No sources found, just false positives. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 14:47, 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, TravellingCari 21:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. -- John Vandenberg ^(chat) 22:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete Created by a Supersweet-article-writing-only account, and still has a heavily promotional tone 22 months later. -Haikon 06:52, 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 merge to Papa Lazarou. (non-admin closure) treelo _radda 20:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Keith Drop

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) 14:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

merge into Papa Lazarou and redirect. it's just the name of his disguised identity. This nomination seems not to have taken account of the particular characteristics of the subject of the article. In this case, none of the above is really relevant, just that there is no separate notability from the "real" character. And if any character article would have been an obvious merge without coming here, it's this. DGG (talk) 16:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:32, 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, Stifle (talk) 08:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Redirect to Papa Lazarou, with optional merge, per DGG. Stifle (talk) 08:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Redirect to Papa Lazarou, with optional merge, per above. – sgeureka ^t•c 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 redirect to The Electric Company. The content is under the redirect for anyone wanting to merge. Stifle (talk) 08:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Otto The Director

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) 14:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

merge into the main article for The Electric Company in the listing for "the Director" There's no real separate notability for this sketch. the paragraph in the main article and this are complementary, and the material can be combined. DGG (talk) 16:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Just redirect to The Electric Company. Full of OR and peacockery (!). Not sourced. There are two gnews hits about the actress that mention the character briefly. No indication that the character itself is the subject of critical commentary. Protonk (talk) 16:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:33, 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 House of Payne. Merge or retarget redirect at editorial discretion. lifebaka++ 15:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Ella Payne

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) 14:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep I'll add additional references and perhaps expand the article, at the time of creating the article I was inexperienced with Wikipedia therefore reluctant to create an article that followed the guidelines to the letter. The article provides no information regarding the plot but rather the character's relationships with other members of the cast. The external links provide sources for many of these claims however I will add citations to be more specific. UniversalBread (talk) 16:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Merge like the other characters into Tyler Perry's House of Payne. The section on the characters there needs to be expanded, but I do not think the show is of the same cultural importance as some of the others we've been considering, and may not justify separate articles for even the principal characters. DGG (talk) 16:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

If we where to create an additional section for characters on the main article it would certainly be too lengthy compared to other sections. If the deletion of the article is indeed mandatory an additional article for information regarding the fictional characters should be created.

Wikipedia guidelines haven't exactly made it clear as to what makes a telivision character "significant" enough to warrant its own article, and really there seems to be a double standard. Characters who appear very rarely such as Meg have their own article (as well as any other character on that show), which--ironically--offer very little information rather than plot summary.

I'm not excusing crappy articles with the existence of multiple other mediocre articles, however this makes it difficult as to distinguish what is required for a character to have their own article. Ella Payne is a key character on the show; if I where to significantly improve the article I doubt a merge would be necessary. UniversalBread (talk) 20:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:33, 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, Stifle (talk) 08:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete this one, no reliable sources == nothing to merge. Stifle (talk) 08:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete and/or redirect. House of Payne already covers this character, nothing to merge (most of it is series overview and character blood relations). – sgeureka ^t•c 08:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

the sources seem suitable for it to be a section of a combination article. They meet WP:V for the purpose--primary sources for uncontroverted material like this are accepted. DGG (talk) 11:11, 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 15:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Saturday Night Live Samurai

This character does not establish notability independent of SNL. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 14:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Merge into one of t he Saturday Night Live character lists, or else to Belushi. But this is not the way to do it--individual characters selected on no particular system. Some of the characters there have separate articles, some are redirected to the actor performing them, and I cannot perceive any particular pattern. Some rational basis should be found for this besides the accident of sourcing. DGG (talk) 16:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Comment The Samurai character actually did appear in Marvel Comics: [25], [26]. There are also brief discussions of the samurai in various other books, like [27] and [28]. There's no need to delete this entirely. Either keep it or merge it. Zagalejo^^^ 19:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep per Zagalejo's links, because of the arbitrary uselessness (organization-wise) of redirecting skits willy-nilly, and because this could almost certainly very easily be sourced by someone who likes SNL (not me, for sure), and has purchased one of the myriad books on the subject that came out in the last five or six years. Ford MF (talk) 07:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep Per sources found above. Hobit (talk) 17:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep per sources. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- Also, try and get your AfD percentage up.[29] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:34, 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. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 00:56, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Suel Forrester

This character does not establish notability independent of SNL. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 14:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Merge as above--same rationale, but try to find some way to review these systematically. DGG (talk) 16:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete No need to merge. Wikipedia is not a directory of every sketch character created on SNL. Some are more famous than others and should be covered in proportion to their exposure in secondary sources. The three gnews hits that come up all make the same one sentence comment about the character in a biographical sketch about Kattan. I'm not inclined to feel that is more than trivial coverage. Protonk (talk) 17:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:33, 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 21:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment Agree with Protonk to the extent Wikipedia no need to have content about every sketch in every show covered here. But for some shows, there is in fact need. The show in question is Saturday Night Live, one of the key shows in the genre. For the most important shows, we should have such content--content, not articles. . Again, Protonk is right that here is not enough notability for a separate article; but there does have to be for content in an article. DGG (talk) 22:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete. No need to merge or redirect. Not every character has to have a redirect. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:48, 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 no consensus. TravellingCari 21:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Body therapy

Contested PROD. Fork of Alternative medicine, where material is already present and dealt with in context. The article is a simple list copied from a "for Dummies" book, and adds noting that isn't already in the AltMed article. Any possible expansion of this article should actually take place in the AltMed article. This is one of a number of similar articles that have recently been created, and if the AltMed page would benefit from splitting this certainly isn't a good way of doing it. This is also a new term with little or no evidence of notability. The current AltMed page was also created by mergeing smaller articles that covered similar topics as this was the will of the community. Verbal chat 13:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete as nominator. Verbal chat 13:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- Afd is not a voting procedure. I think it's obvious that you want to delete this article. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
  - I don't understand your comment. ~~If I didn't want it deleted I wouldn't have brought the AfD.~~ My reasons for deletion are given above, and I'm making clear my position. I'm fully aware that AfD is not a vote, thanks. I'll expand a bit. Verbal chat 13:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
    - What he means is that it is unnecessary to !vote delete especially when the nom indicates deletion in the nom's summary. MuZemike (talk) 14:03, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
      - Many AfD's start that way, and I see nothing about it in WP:AfD, and sometimes AfDs are brought where the nominator is neutral. Verbal chat 14:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
        Most discussion do not in fact start that way, for precisely the reasons that the above two editors have stated. Please read the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. Uncle G (talk) 15:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
        I said "Many", not "Most". This is very off topic and distracting. Please keep to the topic at hand. Thanks. Verbal chat 15:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
        I've !voted at AfDs that I've started before, particularly if I hope to get input from relatively inexperienced editors. It gives them a template to follow. I've always assumed that the closing admin was smart enough to ignore the line. While it's not necessary for the nom to !vote, it's not necessarily a bad thing, either. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Speedy delete (A3) — No content, nothing but links. MuZemike (talk) 13:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
~~A3 Only contains links to other articles. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 15:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)~~
slow down A3 does not cover this--it covers articles consisting just of external tags, not those consisting of internaal links, which are better regarded as a disam page. There are some general books on this as a general mode of therapy, -see Worldcat -- but I think the generally used term is Bodywork, and this should be a redirect to that. DGG (talk) 16:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Merge/redirect to Bodywork (alternative medicine). It is a reasonable search term. - Eldereft (cont.) 18:05, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Redirect to Bodywork (alternative medicine). I'll bet that this stub's original author didn't know that Bodywork already existed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:48, 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. Wizardman 12:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

M. J. Khan

Pakistani academic. Too marginal in my opinion. Not that he hasn't had a nice career: he's currently a Fulbright fellow (which is prestigious but not so uncommon) and has a nice record of publication. Alas, this does not mean that there exists significant third-party coverage of his life or career. Google search is problematic because of this guy and others who also share the same name and initials. Pichpich (talk) 13:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete Non-notable subject, and lack of published, third-party information. Jor dan ^Contribs 14:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete simply not exceptional (notable?) enough. 15:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC) Annette46 (talk) 15:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 01:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete, per nom. Does not appear to pass WP:PROF based on the information available. His webpage[30] indicates that he is still an Assistant Professor. Nsk92 (talk) 22:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete Recent PhD (2004), assistant prof, few publications, none in major journals, no evidence for notability. --Crusio (talk) 23:32, 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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 08:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

McGill Redmen Soccer

Vanity article (only significant editor is clearly affiliated with the team), article makes no claim to notability, no verifiable secondary sources. Chabuk ^{[ T • C ]} 13:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete as non-notable. A bit of material might be mergeable into McGill Redmen but I think the useful material is already there. PK T 13:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete Non-notable biographical article. Merge if possible. Jor dan ^Contribs 14:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Do Not Delete This is not a vanity article, but provides factual information about university level athletics. Also, editor is not necessarily affiliated with the team, but could be any university student. User:Protugal_Love 15:41, 10 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Portugal love (talk • contribs)

— Protugal_Love (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Do Not Delete I don't see what the problem is with the article. If you view external links there is a claim to notability. Further, none of the information presented seems to be subjective or contain normative statements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alldaybaby (talk • contribs) 20:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

— Alldaybaby (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

- Keep per above. Black Tusk (talk) 02:15, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep or at worst merge to McGill Redmen. I don't see anything significantly wrong with the article and reliable, independent sources exist for the topic Google News. DoubleBlue (Talk) 16:07, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Comment The least someone could do is sort out the players' wikilinks. As it stands two of the current squad are long dead, one is a convicted mass murderer, and worse, one is a fashion designer. Bretonbanquet (talk) 10:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- Okay. DoubleBlue (Talk) 10:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep. I see no reason why McGill are less notable than any other QSSF team, or indeed any other university team. Bettia (rawr CRUSH!) 11:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep per Bettia. Giant Snowman 15:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment. The point is that there are already articles about McGill Redmen and McGill Martlets. There is no call for a separate article about this year's Redmen soccer team. They're no more remarkable than their counterparts at the other universities. The most equitable treatment is to include a section about the soccer team and other varsity teams on the Redmen article. PK T 22:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Merge with McGill Redmen. User:DoubleBlue and comment per User:PKT--ClubOranje^Talk 07:31, 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 no consensus. I think there are several other pages like this which could do with being discussed under a wider audience. Stifle (talk) 08:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Claudette

Incorrect disambiguation page for a first name where the individuals noted also use last name (contrast with John, where the linked individuals do not use a last name. Note that this variety of usage is specifically prohibited under the disambiguation policy. Bongomatic (talk) 13:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I see your point, but we also have pages such as Jonathan, which also includes people with Jonathan as their first name. Tizio 15:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- Falls under WP:OSE, but in this example, not for long. I'm not going on a crusade though. Bongomatic (talk) 16:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
  - It isn't really covered by WP:OSE; we are not talking about two similar topics, we are talking about the same: first names. There is no way to differentiate a first name from another (contrarily to bands, people, websites, etc.) See section "Precedent in usage" in OSE. Tizio 17:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- The point of a name disambiguation is that it's a collection of overlapping titles or redirects from alternative titles — i.e. it is for people who are commonly referred-to solely by that name. It is common practice to refer to people solely by their family names, which is why there are name disambiguations for surnames, such as Bush. ("Bush vows to stabilise economy", reads one of today's headlines.) There are people who are known solely by their given name "Jonathan". A disambiguation here would have to be for people who are known solely by their given name "Claudette" (as, for examples, Kylie and Madonna, are). None of the entries on this list apparently are. Uncle G (talk) 17:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
  - I agree that this shouldn't be a disambiguation page. It should be a page about a first name. Tizio 17:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Why delete? It's useful as a disambiguation page, so move to Claudette (disambiguation), and if an article about the name is desired, turn the redirect into that article. Nyttend (talk) 17:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
delete. First names not disambiguated by. And not enough for disambig page: at least 3 articles required. Twri (talk) 18:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep "at least three required"? Not strictly true (desired, yes, required, no), but in any case this had nine, and I've added a handful more - including one to something actually called "Claudette", rather than having it as a first name. Grutness...wha? 00:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Grutness, you're missing the point. Name disambiguation pages are provided for people who have the same name, not the same first name. Bongomatic (talk) 00:57, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I could name dozens of similar dab pages based almost entirely on first names. And before you respond with WP:OSE, I'd suggest you actually read what this essay (yes, it's only an essay, albeit a widely accepted one) actually says. As User:Tizio has already pointed out, WP:OSE, correctly, says that you cannot base the worth of an article against other existing articles in order to say whether an article is worth by dint of the subject's notability - that is, you can't say "X deserved to have an article, since Y has one and is just as notable". In this case, however, this isn't what's being done - a large number of disambiguation pages exist, based on first names. Is this right or wrong? Opinions no doubt vary - there certainly doesn't seem to be wide consensus one way or the other on Wikipedia - but given the large number that exist they seem to be either accepted or at least tolerated by many editors. In any case, as I pointed out, there is now at least one article linked from here which is not for a person, but rather for a song - and the page also links to a disambiguation page for hurricanes called Claudette. As such, even if there were no "people with Claudette as a first name" listed, it would still be marginally viable as a dab page. As it is, there's more than enough here to keep it. Grutness...wha? 08:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep and correctly tag as {{given name}} instead of {{disambig}}. It falls under Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy instead of the disambiguation project. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:47, 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. The essential information in this article is all ready present at the most commonly proposed target article. The additional information is unsourced. I'm happy to userfy for anyone interested in working on this in user space. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Doonesbury Icons

Excessive plot detail and original research. No merge is necessary, as whatever material has merit is already at Doonesbury. Contested PROD. Sandstein 12:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Merge the material offers some insights into the choices behind the political character stand-ins, but nothing that couldn't do with a condensation and merging into the main article. JuJube (talk) 04:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Merge to List of characters in Doonesbury. (Emperor (talk) 23:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC))
Merge everything that is sourced and referenced. In other words, delete. Stifle (talk) 08:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
delete. Merging unsources material would severely damage the target article, why would anyone want to do that?Yobmod (talk) 09:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:03, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete Redundant information. Doonesbury is a political strip, of course they'll use "icons". Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 14:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment The article refers more to the practice of using floating inanimate objects that can speak in place of political figures. JuJube (talk) 07:21, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep or Merge - most of the content seems to be reasonable; whether it has an article to itself or not is not something I have a strong opinion on. As with most articles, it needs sourcing better, but I don't think it wants getting rid of. Pseudomonas_(talk) 19:24, 17 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 keep . If deletion is still desired, then the articles should be, by clear consensus established below and the fact that schools are notable for different reasons, AfD'd separately. Non-admin closure. MuZemike (talk) 16:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Wake Forest-Rolesville High School

unreferenced articles about a public high and middle schools. Article quality varies from pretty good to horrible mess. Subject lacks notability. Articles consist largely of lists of sports and classes available failing to establish why these schools are notable. Rtphokie (talk) 12:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Merge to the school district(s) as is the usual consensus for such articles. Stifle (talk) 12:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Speedy keep and renominate separately if you must. There is generally no consensus on what to do with school articles. Some think that only the most notable ones should be included, some think all should be included, some think all should be merged, and some think that it depends on the situation. It is not at all obvious that all these school articles deserve the same treatment, and a bundled nomination like this will only end in a complete trainwreck. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Speedy keep per Sjakkalle. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep my understanding is that all "high schools" are considered notable though I agree taht at least a reasonable attempt to provide references should be made. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep, not discounting the possibility of selectively relisting some seperately. High schools are rarely outright deletion candidates, and even the nom admits these are of unequal article quality. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Speedy close Not all of these school articles are the same in quality, so why bundle them? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 14:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep/Close Most High schools are notable. Most can be referenced with a little searching. Definately shouldn't be deleted in a bundle. If any are not just un-referenced, but actually unreferencable they chould be nominated separately.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Procedural KeepClose this malformed nomination and nominate separately. Most high schools have been found to be notable in past AFDs, and hould not have been bundled with middle schools. Unlike articles should not be nominated in mass, because it becomes impossible to !vote in a way that is comprehensible if one does not agree with the deletion of all.
- (edit conflict) Beat me to it. Closing as a speedy keep now. Articles warranting deletion can be AfD'd separately. MuZemike (talk) 16:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Comment They all have similar problems so I thought I'd save time by grouping them. It is not a matter of all them having to either go or stay, if there are exceptions they can be handled but if editors prefer to comment on them individually, so be it.--Rtphokie (talk) 19:15, 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. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 00:55, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Dračí doupě

Fails notability since September 2007. Check talk page about some sources, but they don't look satisfying. Magioladitis (talk) 12:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:36, 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, NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 03:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment Has anyone who speaks Slovak or Czech been asked about this? Both languages have significant articles on this game; although I definitely don't know anything about their notability policies, it seems that an article on this game could reasonably be written using their sources. Nyttend (talk) 03:25, 14 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 21:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. -- TravellingCari 21:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. -- TravellingCari 21:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Comment I also notified the Czech WikiProject to get some input. TravellingCari
Keep I don't think this game necessarily fails the notability guidelines for games. It's been the subject of several published works and has been in print for 18 years. It seems notable enough that English speakers would occasionally encounter it and want to look it up, but without speaking Czech that's hard to know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haikon (talk • contribs) 06:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep Individual parts of the "Dračí doupě" were reissued many times and in many variants in Czech Republic.[31]

The game is popular up to now, mainly among Czech teenagers . Moreover, the article is accurate, although it doesn´t cite any sources. Agree with Haikon, occasionally may be useful for English speakers.--Vejvančický (talk) 13:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete. It is probably the most played RPG game in the Czech Republic (by virtue of being the first on the market) but ... the current article is just a very shallow overview of the game plus the list of available characters (Czech Wikipedia article grew into low quality how-to guide). It does not provide encyclopedically useful information as who, when, why or how many. Wikipedia will get better, not worse by deleting this text. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 16:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The current quality of the article is not a reason for its deletion, in fact, your arguments seem more for keeping the article than for deleting it. The Dominator^Talk_Edits 04:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion keeping the current text would more likely discourage and scare potential contributors than to encourage them to improve it. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 19:22, 17 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. TravellingCari 20:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.

Aberra Molla

This is a vanity page created and written by Molla. (It was originally deleted, but then reinstated at Molla's request, which explains why his is not the first edit in the page history. The identity of User:Ethiopic and Molla is apparent among other places by his giving permission on the talk page for another editor to use his picture.) It is completely unnotable except for the quite dubious claim that he Unicodified Ethiopic, which I am unable to confirm with the Unicode Consortium. One source, on a web site which Molla has written several articles for (these articles are primary "sources" for the article), a paean calling him the "Father of Ethiopic", says that he created the first computer font for Ethiopic. Possibly true, but a long way from creating the Unicode proposal, and in any case we don't have bios on every person who created a font or even who wrote an accepted Unicode proposal. Molla has also added a claim to the Ge'ez alphabet article that he computerized the script,[32] and then repeatedly deleted claims that other people were also responsible for computerizing Ethiopic.[33][34] kwami (talk) 20:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete, basically per nom. The only serious claim to notability is the claim to be the first to computerize the Ethiopic language. However, such a claim would need some serious verification and collaboration by independent reliable sources which does not seem to be available here. Moreover, the diffs provided by the nom show that there are valid competing claims references to which User:Ethiopic has been removing. Little or nothing of relevance in googlenews[35] and googlebooks[36]. Also, apparent WP:AUTO/WP:COI problems here. Nsk92 (talk) 00:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep Dr. Molla is quite notable for his achievements within the Ethiopian community, both online and off; note the Amharic version includes this article, and if you cut and paste, google search for his name in the Ethiopic text, you will get many more hits to Amharic language sources. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 02:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Which achievements are those? AFAIK he hasn't contributed to Unicode as he claims, and lots of people have created Ethiopic fonts. In fact, in what I've read on his website, he lambastes Unicode for not accepting his proposals (the "enemies of Ethiopic" are making imperfect proposals, etc.). His English and Amharic sources are mostly written by himself, or interviews with him posted at his website. According to the 1991 article, he created an Ethiopic IME, but I don't know that that's notable. Maybe mention of his name in the Ge'ez alphabet article, but a vanity autobiography? Also, what is notable for Amharic wiki may not be notable here—I'm sure there are lots of local US politicians who are not notable enough to make it onto Amharic wikipedia—and the Amharic article is just a stub.

I've checked Google. There are 17 hits.[37] They are Molla's own website, English Wiki, Amharic Wiki, wiki mirrors, a couple web stats sites, a site on AIDS that mentions the CDCP brochure he translated into Amharic, and an Oromo blog, which allocates Molla one line of print for one of his patents, and then in the very next line credits Obbo Ayana Birru for having "Invented Amharic Type writer and brough the Geez scripts to the 21st century." That is, the only independent source denies Molla credit for his claims! kwami (talk) 03:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Be sure to also check the more common spelling "አበራ ሞላ" that brings up 69 more hits including several more articles about him in Amharic press. The Amharic wiki has only 3000-3500 articles total and is still waiting for many articles to be written, including many notable US politicians, but as knowledge grows over the decades and centuries, who knows how much more complete it could be one day 100's of years from now. But if you do not want to include notable information for the English encyclopedia, it is probably your loss. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

A search for "አበራ ሞላ" gives 70 hits in the plain google search[38] (of which only 13 appear to be from unique addresses[39]), but 0 hits in googlebooks[40], 0 hits in googlenews[41] and 0 hits in googlescholar[42]. Of the 70 plain google search hits most appear to be some kind of wiki-mirrors as well as blogs ands bulletin boards, and certainly not passing WP:RS. A far cry from even passing WP:V, not to mention WP:N or WP:BIO here. Nsk92 (talk) 15:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete Whether he actually did what he claims to have done is beyond the scope of our discussion here, but appears to be at the very least disputable and not exactly supported by any reliable sources I could find. Additionally, while autobiography/COI is not always in itself a reason to delete, when coupled with marginal-at-best notability the case becomes far more clear. Delete as being of questionable notability and unsupported by reliable sources and thus failing WP:BIO. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep per TE's rationale. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 14:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete not supported by reliable sources. Also not a sufficiently notable person.Annette46 (talk) 15:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete Per the comments above of Nsk92, reliable sources are lacking to verify the claims. Edison (talk) 16:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment I'd asked User:Codex Sinaiticus to join us, as he contributed to the Amharic article, and now that I'm writing this I see he's Til Eulenspiegel, above. Til, you'd said he's a "prominent businessman among the Ethiopian community", but that you don't know about his Unicode claims. From what Molla's been writing, it would seem the Unicode stuff is his main claim to fame, veterinary work is second, and he makes no mention of his business. (I assume you mean his computer business, not his vaccines?) He describes himself as "an Ethiopian veterinarian and writer", but the only piece of writing he describes is an Amharic adaptation of an CDCP Aids brochure—hell, I'm a writer if that's all that's required: I've published malaria pamphlets in languages that didn't have any, and published in other fields as well, but wouldn't claim to be notable. So we're down to his veterinary work. Is being a USDA veterinarian, the field test (two patents for the same test, it would seem), and student work at CSU "notable"? The field test that the patents are for isn't notable enough for even Molla to explain what exactly it is. But my opposition stems primarily from his self-aggrandizement (evidenced also by his deleting mention of any other contributors to digitizing Amharic). kwami (talk) 19:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep you all are being ridiculous, and some, such as kwami, are just being childish - why else would he start a discussion with the comment "This is a vanity page". If you can't read amharic, then you may not know all of the contributions that Dr. Molla has made to the Ethiopian community or to advancements in computers. Until you learn, you cannot say what information is out there or the effect of Dr. Molla's contributions. Those who can read and understand Amharic know better than to delete this page. Also, wikipedia is meant to be a global encylopedia, not just an encylopedia for those who speak English. The fact that you are considering deleting a page because you haven't found corroboration in English is an insult to the community. Finally, there is nothing wrong with deleting information that is incorrect, which is what was done in the past, which frankly just makes me wonder if you bothered to discuss the reasons for deleting that information as much as you are discussing this now.... no... I didn't think so. [anon.]

Amharic sources are fine, but this has no supporting sources whatsoever. There are no significant Amharic sources online, not just no English sources. We also have a general policy against autobiographies, and this is a vanity page—I mean, come on, stuff he helped his professors do in school? I could make my life sound worthy of an encyclopedia article if you gave me free reign. It has nothing to do with him being Amharic. If you, our anonymous voter, want the article to stay, why not add the Amharic sources that back it up? kwami (talk) 04:48, 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) 15:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Marina da Glória

POVy description of a non-notable place. Damiens.rf 00:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:38, 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, NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 03:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete Sounds like part of a race? There's nothing to demonstrate notability here. Nyttend (talk) 03:24, 14 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 20:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete--I'm with Nyttend (again): no notability, no references. Drmies (talk) 22:03, 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 no consensus, although JonStrines has already redirected it. Stifle (talk) 08:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Specialist (comics)

Specialist_(comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ([[{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}|View AfD]])

The Specialist was a supporting character in a couple of issues of Spiderman 2099 who was killed in his last appearance: there's not much more to say about him than that he exists and so isn't really notable enough for a whole article of his own. JonStrines (talk) 09:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep or failing that, merge and redirect to Tyler Stone (comics) or Spider-Man 2099. BOZ (talk) 12:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete. I used to read these comics back in the day, and this is a fairly minor character. I very much doubt there are any reliable, real world sources that might make this a notable subject in its own right. A pity there doesn't seem to be a List of minor characters in the Marvel 2099 universe, otherwise I might suggest merging. PC78 (talk) 11:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

There's Marvel 2099#Villains, even if that's not perfect. ;) BOZ (talk) 13:06, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Merge to Tyler Stone (comics). (Emperor (talk) 00:01, 12 October 2008 (UTC))

Just a query: what's the connection with Tyler Stone to warrent a merge there? I would have thought Spidey 2099 would be the better fit, as its the title of the comic the character appeared in. JonStrines (talk) 09:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Justification from: "The Specialist worked for Tyler Stone as an assassin and field operative for the Stark/Fujikawa Corporation in the year 2099. At the behest of Tyler Stone, the Specialist captured Kasey Nash in order to lure the Spider-Man of that era into battle" I technically don't mind a merge to spider-Man 2099 but thought the slightly better option might be to his boss. My transferable vote is to merge it to Spider-Man 2099. (Emperor (talk) 13:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC))

We could do that now and just close the AFD as a merge/withdraw. BOZ (talk) 13:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd support a merge/withdraw: I think the character warrants a mention, just not a whole article. JonStrines (talk) 14:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

If you do both, then it will all be over. :) BOZ (talk) 15:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've merged and redirected. No idea what I have to do to close the AfD though - the wiki artuicle says I don't have to do anything, so hopefully that's true. JonStrines (talk) 08:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough - I think just leave it like it is? It's a good compromise, especially when it's not a hotly contested affair. BOZ (talk) 12:29, 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 deleted by User:Golbez (G6). (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 11:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The Manhattan Project (book

I Vock (talk) 09:21, 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 / redirect. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 01:01, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Owen Knight

A fictional character in a long standing soap opera with no real world information. Article consists 99% of plot. No references of third party sources (in fact no references at all). Article created before character appears in the show (see WP:RECENTISM. Fails notability (see also WP:FICTION). The only facts worth are already in wikipedia in List of The Bold and the Beautiful characters. No reason to create another article just to put unverifiable, unreferenced plot summaries, minor than these appearing in the B&B storylines.Article was deleted in June 8 and recreated some days later with the same content. Unfortunately, I discovered that after nomination for Afd. Maybe db-repost could apply as well back in July. Magioladitis (talk) 08:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Magioladitis (talk) 10:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Merge to a combination article The existence of a separate article is not justified, but a combination one is. The existing list that the nom. mentions is a bare listing giving the name of the character and the actor, without the slightest mention of the role in the story. This is not adequate information. In a sense this argument is moot, because regardless of the decision here --even a G4--there is no reason not to add information to the list, or to make a combination article for recurring characters. It's a pity content disputes end up here. Plot summaries are of course verifiable and referenceable from the primary work,so the objections of the nom to a combination article does not hold. At worst, this should be a redirect, and the nomination mentions no reason why not to do it. The last few weeks has seen a significant unwarranted change in the purpose of AfD--instead of discussing whether to delete articles, we are discussing whether the merge or redirect them. According to policy, this is not the right place. DGG (talk) 17:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Why should we have a redirect for every character that appears in the show? Moreover, this article was deleted and recreated against consensus, with the content, a week after its deletion. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:17, 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 20:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete--non-notable, and incredibly wordy. Drmies (talk) 22:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
(Delete and/or) redirect Nonnotable and unduely plot-heavy. Redirection still allows interested editors to merge (although its easier to just come up with something new and shorter) but also actively discourages recreation for ooh-a-redlink newbies. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:52, 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 redirect to Video projector. MBisanz ^talk 15:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Home Theater Projectors

Non-notable, non-encyclopedic, appears to have been written by the owner of the website that is the only reference. —G716 <^T·_C> 08:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Redirect to Video projector treelo _radda 09:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Weak Keep "Home theater projector" is a subject discussed in 19 books per Google Book search [43] and in 520 sources per Google news archive [44] indicating that reliable sources exist to expand and improve the article. See [45]. See [46] , [47] , [48] , [49] , [50] , [51] [52] , [53] , [54] , [55]. Edison (talk) 16:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Redirect or Merge to Video projector, even in the light (no pun intended) of some sourcing, it still doesn't seem too different from this article in terms of content. Changed !vote to include merge and rationale. treelo _radda 17:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Redirect to Video projector. I'm not sure that there is anything to merge. In addition I believe that much of this article is WP:OR or in other ways suspect. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Comment Did you even look at the reliable sources I found with substantial discussion of "home theater projectors" before you claimed "original researce?" Edison (talk) 05:36, 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 Merge and redirect to Full Moon wo Sagashite. (non-admin closure) treelo _radda 00:48, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Ginyuu Meika

Fails notability since September 2007. Articles is unreferenced as well. Magioladitis (talk) 08:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:47, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Merge. The article says that it is a 1-chapter 1-shot bonus in another manga, so merge it there. --Gwern (contribs) 23:53 11 October 2008 (GMT)
Merge and redirect to Full Moon wo Sagashite per reasoning given by Gwern. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:07, 12 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)

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) 08:35, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

David Rindner

No assertion of notability whatsoever. Seems to be an abbreviated CV —G716 <^T·_C> 08:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- —G716 <^T·_C> 08:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete for not verifying notability. Google searches bring up Amazon listings for his book and Wiki-esque pages only. Not even an entry on IMDB, and having trawled through full cast lists for the films that he allegedly worked on... no mention there either. I think he needs a few more years under his belt before he reaches similar notability to people like Wayne Fitzgerald or even Kyle Cooper. OBM | ^{blah blah blah} 09:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete per above. No reliable sources --Megaboz (talk) 13:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete not notable enough Annette46 (talk) 15:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep Since this is the same David Rindner who authored "FormZ Modeling For Visual Effects and Animation". In ITS field it appears quite notable. In the field of computer graphics design, Rindner is an award winner. Forget his position in the film industry... when you look into his graphic background and expertise, there is a lot more to this guy than the article shared. I am curious as to how these sources slipped past the author, as that seems to be a much better source of notability than indicated in the article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:18, 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. TravellingCari 20:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

William Cabot

(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) 19:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Merge or redirect to a suitable list Significant but not central character in major film (and presumably the equally major Clancy book on which its was based). Certainly does not seem signif enough to have a full article, but should be part of a combination article or a list or mentioned in the film article & redirected. It would help if noms for deletion considered these possibilities in cases like this. DGG (talk) 00:02, 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, Stifle (talk) 08:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete as not significant or notable outside the film, with an optional recreation as a redirect. DGG, it's my understanding that TTN is vilified and reverted for making redirects or merger proposals on this kind of article, such that he feels AFD is the only outlet where he can bring his proposals. Stifle (talk) 08:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete/Merge/Redirect per lack of (independent) WP:NOTABILITY. The plot is already covered in The Sum of All Fears (film), and the reception sentence is nothing more than "I liked Morgan Freeman's performance". – sgeureka ^t•c 10:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep due to disruptive copy and paste noms across multiple AfDs that only merit copy and paste replies and per notability. I see no evidence that the nominator is looking for sources or considering the merits of individual articles. If it’s an episode or character, it must go as far as he’s concerned. When has he argued to keep? When has he added sources? At least some of the others who typically argue to delete in these kind of AfDs also spend time writing articles. This is getting out of hand. As much as he may hate having to actually discuss with others who disagree with him in redirect and merge discussions, that’s the route to go, not to circumvent discussion and misuse AfD when has admitted he not actually after deletion but rather using AfD to get things merged or redirected. Maybe people challenge his redirects and merge, because others interpret policy in a different way. Maybe that’s the real consensus. This is not TTN is right and everyone else is wrong and that’s it. I know these discussions should usually be about the articles and not the other editors in the discussions, but clearly these are pointed and disruptive noms and we really do need to take that into account. We shouldn’t humor pointed nominations as it is clear from the outcomes that these articles vary wildly in quality and this just labeling them all with the same tired post is not really honest. It’s hard to focus on the article’s individual merits when the nominator is not considerate enough to provide an original nomination rationale for other editor’s volunteer work. It’s easy to slap an AfD template on articles others are working on, but why not join in the actual efforts to do what you can to improve the articles, too? If you are unwilling to do so, then this is nothing more than just not liking these kinds of articles, because it is clear from what others keep showing that sources can be found or at worst that the articles could just be redirected and/or merged. Why would anyone not be willing to add sources at least occasionally to articles? We should ban him from AfDs for at least a while and see if in the meantime he is willing to do anything to build any articles. If he isn’t then it will be clear as so many of us suspect that he isn’t really here as a legitimate good faith editor after all.--63.3.1.2 (talk) 15:39, 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 by Rmhermen as vandalism (non-admin closure). Cunard (talk) 19:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Fabrice Tami

Suspected hoax, per lack of existance of sources. Punkmorten (talk) 08:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete (possibly speedy). I'm inclined to agree - there's no mention of him playing for Gabon in the years from 2004, and no mention of him on FC Locarno's website either. Apart from a few Wiki mirrors there are no other mentions of him at all. Bettia (rawr CRUSH!) 10:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Bettia (rawr CRUSH!) 10:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom as hoax. Giant Snowman 10:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Speedy delete as hoax. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Speedy delete as hoax. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Speedy delete hoax. fails WP:V Annette46 (talk) 15:37, 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 keep. Stifle (talk) 10:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Irene McCormack

This article seems to be here as a memorial. She does not appear to be notable except for the manner of her death Grahame (talk) 07:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 07:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep Her life and death seems notable enough for a book to be written by a notable author that was considered worth a review in The Age. Clearly meets WP:N in that multiple reliable sources detailing her life are available. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 07:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep - needs a little copy-editing work but in any event appears to meet N and V at enough levels for inclusion.--VS ^talk 07:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Withdrawn by nominator --Grahame (talk) 09:47, 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 delete. per WP:SNOW Rjd0060 (talk) 15:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Creating the creator

Originally a piece of complete bollocks about a 15 million selling album by a redlinked band, an IP removed the prod and the obviously untrue sections, but now all we're left with is an "independently released" album by said redlinked band with no assertion of notability whatsoever. The 39 Google hits don't contain any evidence of notability either, or anything close to a reliable source. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 07:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 07:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete for missing WP:MUSIC by a country mile. OBM | ^{blah blah blah} 08:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 11:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete band not notable = album not notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Snowball delete album by red link band. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 14:59, 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 15:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

List of articles about abortion by country

Was prodded due to articles best being presented in categories, editor removed prod tags. Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 06:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete - unnecessary list. Category:Abortion by country already provides this. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete per WP:LC item 7. Stifle (talk) 12:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Comment. A list to supplement the category might be useful to call attention to articles yet uncreated. This list apparently does not. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete redundant to a pre-existing category and per WP:LC. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 15:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep. Please see very large list of links to this article: [56]. This list helps to better organize WP content on the abortion subjects.Biophys (talk) 17:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Organisation of content is what categorisation is for. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 04:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete: a category is enough for this. Alexius08 (talk) 04:56, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
I re-targetted a couple of links in abortion law templates to the better Abortion_law#National_laws, which should get rid of many incoming links. Many others come from Template:Abortion, which has a link labelled "abortion by country". This initially seemed necessary, but the main article also has the abortion by country template at the top, right under Template:Abortion, so navigation through the main template is probably enough for those.--chaser - t 15:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete Or change to category or template. I don't mind the notion of some navigational help in getting a worldwide view of abortion, but having an article like this is a self reference and is kind of superfluous to a category. a template might be nice/helpful, but that is an editorial decision. Protonk (talk) 17:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep. Navigational list. All delete votes are of the "redundant with category" variety, which is always wrong per our guideline on the subject at WP:CLN. AndyJones (talk) 20:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - I've just read the guideline (thanks for ref) and I'm not sure that it applies to this particular list. This is a list of articles that are on Wikipedia - which is exactly what the existing category does - rather than a list of things. Would it not be better, for this particular case, to have a navigational template? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
  - That's exactly what the guideline says. You don't choose which is better; you can have both. AndyJones (talk) 08:05, 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 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 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

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/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. [57] - 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

AfDs for this article:

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

AfDs for this article:

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: [58][59][60][61], 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 ([62]). 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: ([63]) 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 [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], 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 [71] and [72]. 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 [73], 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 [74] 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 ([75]) and when he's discussed, is in terms of this hugely popular character [76]. 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. [77]. [78] 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.

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 as redundant. GlassCobra 17:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Danielle Lloyd (motivational speaker)

Possibly unsourced WP:BLP or WP:OR. Not certain if this should exist. Alkwingle (talk) 08:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep. Certainly needs better sourcing and expanded references, but a googlenews search reveals plenty of newscoverage of her as a glamour model: 308 googlenews hits for "Danielle Lloyd" model[79], including quite a few with specific and detailed coverage, such as [80],[81][82][83][84], etc. Much of the coverage seems to be from the British tabloid press, but there still seems to be quite enough coverage from mainstream media for passing WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 12:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Change to Delete, since, as zzuuzz notes below, there already is an article about this person, Danielle Lloyd. Everything relevant is already covered there and the page nominated here is a redundant self-promotional fork. Nsk92 (talk) 16:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete vanity/promotional article. Annette46 (talk) 15:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I recuse myself from a formal opinion as I've blocked the nominator for disruption, but editors should be made aware that at one point this redirected to the existing article at Danielle Lloyd, until reverted. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:17, 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.

@@ 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 School District
+{| width = "100%"
-|name=  Whitewright Independent School District
+|-
-|image=
+! width="50%" align="left"  | <font color="gray">&lt;</font> [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 October  9|October 9]]
-|motto= Where the Bell Tolls for Excellence
+! width="50%" align="right" |  [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 October  11|October 11]] <font color="gray">&gt;</font>
-|type=  [[Public_school|Public]]
+|}
-|budget=
+</div>
-|established=
+<div align = "center">'''[[Wikipedia:Guide to deletion|Guide to deletion]]'''</div>
-|region= ESC Region 10
+{{Cent}}
-|grades= Pre-K through 12
+<small>{{purge|Purge server cache}}</small>
-|superintendent = Steve Arthur
+__TOC__
-|contact number=
+<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
-|teachers=
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Palao}}
-|staff=
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paco Zamora}}
-|students=
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Max Sanders}}
-|conference= [[University Interscholastic League|UIL]] Class AA
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Artimus Pyledriver}}
-|colors=
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derek Deakins}}
-|free_label=Mascot
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wake Forest-Rolesville High School (2nd nomination)}}
-|free_text=tiger
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sanderson High School}}
-|free_label2=
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cary High School}}
-|free_text2=
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Panther Creek High School}}
-|free_label3=
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apex High School}}
-|free_text3=
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Millbrook High School (North Carolina)}}
-|location=[[Whitewright, Texas|Whitewright]], [[Texas|TX]]
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Centennial Campus Middle School}}
-|country=[[United States|USA]]
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Garner Magnet High School}}
-|website=[http://www.whitewrightisd.com/ Whitewright ISD]
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leesville Road High School}}
-}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wakefield High School (Raleigh, North Carolina)}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Middle Creek High School}}
-'''Whitewright Independent School District''' is a public [[school district]] based in [[Whitewright, Texas|Whitewright]], [[Texas]] ([[United States|USA]]).
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tiny Cracker Zoo}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Nomads}}
-Located in southeastern Grayson County, the district extends into a small portion of western [[Fannin County, Texas|Fannin]] and northeastern [[Collin County, Texas|Collin]] counties.
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DeathStation 9000}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Burger Chef murders}}
-==Schools==
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/894 (number)}}
-*Whitewright Elementary (Grades PK-5)
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/899 (number)}}
-*Whitewright Middle (Grades 6-8)
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Best of The Dogg}}
-*Whitewright High (Grades 9-12)
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eleftherios Arelis}}
-small town hahhahahahah
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dimitris Papadatos}}
-connor was here
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khar-polis}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Three Perfect Laws of Life}}
-==External links==
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sandy Hoffmann}}
-*[http://www.whitewrightisd.com/ Whitewright ISD]
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven Disraeli}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erickson Air-Crane Admin Offices Heliport}}
-{{TEA district rating|RE}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Elizabeth Hospital Heliport (2nd nomination)}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pix-Yu}}
-[[Category:Grayson County, Texas]]
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tree (The Folk Experience)}}
-[[Category:Fannin County, Texas]]
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Gravier}}
-[[Category:Collin County, Texas]]
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Hanson}}
-[[Category:School districts in Texas]]
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Haslam (football coach)}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FXhome EffectsLab}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Western Culinary Institute}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Herron}} <!--RELISTED-->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Supersweet}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keith Drop}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Otto The Director}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ella Payne}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saturday Night Live Samurai}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suel Forrester}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Body therapy}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/M. J. Khan}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/McGill Redmen Soccer}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Claudette}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doonesbury Icons}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wake Forest-Rolesville High School}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dračí doupě}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aberra_Molla}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marina_da_Glória}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Specialist_(comics)}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Manhattan Project (book}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Owen Knight (2nd nomination)}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Home Theater Projectors}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ginyuu Meika}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Rindner}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Cabot}}<!--Relisted-->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fabrice Tami}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Irene McCormack}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Creating the creator}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of articles about abortion by country}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MedExpress Urgent Care}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Computers for kids}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lorelei (bondage model)}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. joseph school of san jose city}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aamir Ghauri}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Worrow}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Potter and the Hall of Elders' Crossing (2nd nomination)}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/N. Nomurai}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hexism}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parramatta Citadel Band}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Breaking Down Boundaries}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Dark Wielder}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Speed racer pass}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lorne Gershuny}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2006 Winter Olympics highlights (2nd nomination)}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ValoreBooks.com}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sudden Attack}}<!--Relisted-->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Plea for Purging}}<!--Relisted-->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Creighton the Cretin (2nd nomination)}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Perkins' 14}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slipknot Demo}}<!--Relisted-->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Winnie the Pooh (song)}}<!--Relisted-->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cake Bake Betty}}<!--Relisted-->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Journalism and public intellectuals}}<!--Relisted-->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neely O'Hara}}<!--Relisted-->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Munna Bhai}}<!--Relisted-->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emperor Malthazar}}<!--Relisted-->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hsiao Mi}}<!--Relisted-->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tuco (The Ugly)}}<!--Relisted-->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Puzzle Guardian}}<!--Relisted-->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crossroads (mini series)}}<!--Relisted-->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Demon (The Cave)}}<!--Relisted-->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tempest & the Diaspora}}<!--Relisted-->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kosovo–Nauru relations}}<!--Relisted-->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danielle Lloyd (motivational speaker)}}