Koganei Station and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 October 11: Difference between pages

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 12:25, 11 October 2008

< October 10	October 12 >

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 redirect to List of The Young and the Restless characters. (non-admin closure) treelo _radda 00:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Blade Bladeson

Non-notable character, has not received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Cirt (talk) 12:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Redirect to List of The Young and the Restless characters. No coverage to support a separate article. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:01, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
(Delete or) Redirect to List of The Young and the Restless characters. No content to support a separate article per WP:SPINOUT. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Redirect per all above. JohnCD (talk) 15:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:01, 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) 08:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

List of Where in the World Is Carmen Sandiego? episodes

Game shows do not require episode lists. They do not have any plot details, so they just act as a directory for various trivial details. TTN (talk) 12:24, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep. The fact that this show is no longer on the air (and has yet to be released on DVD), makes it a relic of television history. This program was, like JEOPARDY!, an education-based gameshow. And each episode did have a tiny plot attached to it to keep things moving along. Until the complete series makes it to DVD (or is rerun in syndication), this article serves as a tremendous source of information about the outcome of the show, every step of the way.
Delete. Somewhat agree with TTN's reasoning. With serial works, a list of episode summaries aids with the understanding of the programme. As the format of a gameshow stays roughly the same it can be summarised with a few paragraphs in the main article. This list is well written and complete, it'd be a shame to lose it. Can it be transwikied somewhere? Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep -- I believe the nominator's premise -- that this was a "game show" -- is based on a misconception. I believe this was an educational show, not a "game show". I believe the episode did have plots. Geo Swan (talk) 13:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

The episodes have individual cookie cutter segments that utilize (extremely terrible) actors. It was just a gimmick to make it more interesting or something. Listing them will do nothing to help someone understand the show. TTN (talk) 14:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep if the show is notable, I see no reason why a list of episodes shouldn't be. There's more detail in this list than merely titles, it does contribute somethign to an overall history of what appears to be a popular show of some interest. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Mind you that notability is not inherited but must be shown via reliable sources independent of the subject. MuZemike (talk) 16:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Despite the popularity of this fallacy, WP:NOTINHERITED isn't itself a proof that all items related to a notable article are thus non-notable. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete or Transwiki if a good wikihome can be found — lack of verifiable sources as well as Wikipedia is not a directory. MuZemike (talk) 16:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete TTN's reasoning is basically sound here. WitWiCS (woot!) did use segues that weren't in game show format but no "plot" existed from day to day which any reliable source could report on. What sources were used in compiling this list? How do we know it is accurate? How can other readers verify the elements on this list? Protonk (talk) 16:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep. Although technically a game show, it was a game show with distinctive plotlines. That makes it a special case, and makes a List of Episodes article perfectly viable. 23skidoo (talk) 16:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep A list of episodes is exactly what we want in general. It has plots, I don't see a problem. Hobit (talk) 17:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Comment I think this is a fair topic for an article. The show was basically a game show, but it worked within the logic of a fictional universe, with daily plotlines and a large cast of recurring fictional characters. However, I'm a bit curious who compiled the information at TV.com. Zagalejo^^^ 18:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep - Not a normal game show. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Weak Delete but after transwiking the table, primarily this being based on indiscriminate info. I do appreciate the other comments that this show had something that resembled a plot, but when you consider that it was basically a "Clue" like plot (Evil person X stole Y and went to Z), with X, Y, and Z being essentially random with no recurring theme throughout the show, it's hard to say that's really a plot. The other details on the table (the ultimate winner, the map used for the final round, and if it was won or not) feels very excessive for what we'd normally consider part of a television show's coverage, and leaves questions that (at least) I'd ask, like who were the other players, how much did they win by, and so forth - again, things that would not be included but feel necessary to have to include to complete this table, and thus making it difficult to access. There's something in this list that should be saved, and that's why I think transwiki is the better option. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masem (talk • contribs)
Neutral leaning to delete While I can see the usefulness of (parts of) this list, my main concern is the lack of sourcing. Unlike many TV series, there are no DVDs for WitWiCS to quickly check if the entries in this list are accurate, and in the absense of reliable third-party sources, I am reluctant to keep lists around that are sourced from volatile primary sources. – sgeureka ^t•c 15:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
keep per 23Skidoo. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep but find and add a source. This game show did in fact have a "plot" of sorts in each episode. However, if reliable sources can't be found to verify the info in the list, then delete or merge into Where in the World Is Carmen Sandiego? (game show). —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep Needs sources, but as per 23skidoo, this game show is a special case, so a list of episodes is fine. -- how do you turn this on 18:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Weak Keep I agree, it needs sources if it is to be kept. - -The Spooky One (talk to me) 19:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep I don't see any violations of Wikipedia:Notability given many TV Episode lists, deprived of other independent sources, must rely solely on the particular episode or primary sources to reference themselves. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 10:27, 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 delete. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 05:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Elena Lyons

Had a few roles but lacks significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Cirt (talk) 12:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:07, 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, treelo _radda 00:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Strong Keep Searching Google news and choosing ALL dates brings up plenty. PHARMBOY (TALK) 00:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Does not meet WP:ENTERTAINER. None of the roles to date have been significant. Minor non-recurring roles only in 15 year career. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 01:50, 18 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) 08:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Myron Evans

Subject has requested deletion of his BLP. Apart from his claimed discoveries in fringe science, subject is otherwise unnotable. Mathsci (talk) 12:01, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete It's not accepted by the mainstream scientific community and it has not been presented by the mainstream press, so I guess it's not notable enough. bogdan (talk) 12:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Daniel (talk) 12:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Mathsci (talk) 12:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nominator and bogdan. Does not seem to meet the requirements of WP:PROF. --Hans Adler (talk) 12:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete, fails WP:PROF, and notability as a meme in popular culture is not established. --dab (𒁳) 14:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:06, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep. These sorts of articles are valuable to readers, who otherwise may have difficulty finding impartial information about a topic. Looie496 (talk) 16:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
This is an inappropriate subject for a biography, as no independent biographical sources exist. He makes a number of claims to notability, including being a (or the) "Civil List Scientist", but these claims are entirely unverifiable from any independent source - while it is apparent from a primary source replicated on his website that he enjoys a pension of some sort from the Civil List, there is nothing in Hansard or on any government website to indicate why it is, and his claim that this is somehow an endorsement of his AIAS work is not supportable from a single independent source. There is, in fact, no reputable source for the existence of any distinction or title of "Civil List Scientist". The civil list for 2007 does not mention him or his purported title. This singular claim is emblematic of the the problems with verifying anything about the man himself. On the other hand, his theory may indeed be "notable twaddle". I would suggest that if four or five decent sources could be found discussing his work in at least reasonably dispassionate terms then an article on the theory may well be justified. This article, however, has to go as seriously failing WP:BLP. Guy 16:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete. This case is not really clear-cut. The editorial by Nobelist 't Hooft (cited in the article) mentions 15 papers published in the journal "Foundations of Physics Letters" (not part of Foundations of Physics and another two articles dedicated solely to refuting Evans' theory. On the other hand, the citation record is rather dismal: Scopus mentions two articles cited 14 and 13 times, the rest are in the single digits. Taken together, I think this fails WP:PROF and barring coverage in mainstream media, also WP:BIO. As an aside, not every theory that is wrong is pseudoscience. Given that this theory was published in respected physics journals (there are also articles in Physica B: Condensed Matter and Acta Physica Polonica, Series B), I would hesitate to call this pseudoscience. --Crusio (talk) 17:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment. I have not commented on Evans' mathematics: he has claimed that the Bianchi identities are not valid for an arbitrary connection on a principal bundle. This is nonsense: it is not just pseudoscience, but extremely bad science. Mathsci (talk) 21:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment For a real scientist, commiting errors is less bad than doing pseudoscience. I have no objection to "bad science". I object to pseudoscience without solid evidence. --Crusio (talk) 22:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that in RL world of scientific research these labels are very rarely applied. A lot of good scientists make unintentional errors or oversights which they later correct. Mathsci (talk) 23:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete There don't seem to be any notable contributions here, beyond theories which not only have not been accepted, but seem to qualify as pseudoscience. That doesn't qualify as notable. FlyingToaster (talk) 17:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Note to FlyingToaster (and Daniel above) This isn't a vote, please provide some sort of reasoning. Thank you. -- how do you turn this on 18:01, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
  - My reason is the nomination, as I fielded (and replied to) the subject's request for deletion. My position in this debate was more to confirm the existance of said request (as it is in our restricted access system) and to suggest that I would agree with/support the subject's request. Daniel (talk) 00:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Barely notable individual, and per reasonable request for this to be deleted, make it so. -- how do you turn this on 18:01, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete - His theories have not until now been accepted by the mainstream scientific community? How about are not accepted? But, as has been pointed out, he's just not notable. AlexTiefling (talk) 18:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete as failing an reasonable test of notability and verifiability. There's just not enough out there to support even the barest of stubs in a reliable manner. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Comment. How many of the people claiming lack of notability have actually looked at this? It's clear that Evans is a crank whose ideas get no mainstream support, but it's equally clear that his ideas are notable enough to have provoked three reputable physicists to publish papers debunking them. Looie496 (talk) 18:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

What is clear is you are violating WP:BLP here. This is not a forum to discuss your personal views on the subject. Please refrain from attacking him. (I suggest you remove your attacks as soon as possible) -- how do you turn this on 18:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

User:How do you turn this on, I am not sure your comments are helpful. You should be aware that one way of assessing a scientist's mathematical contributions is to look at mathscinet. Evans does not do very well there, as there are several published refutations of his work, confirmed by reviewers. This should not be mistaken for a personal attack: this is just an indication that he has repeatedly made errors in his mathematics. Please stop wikilawyering. Mathsci (talk) 21:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Calling someone a crank is a personal attack. -- how do you turn this on 22:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment ~~User:How do you turn this on, only you have used the word "crank" on this page~~. The papers I mentioned and their corresponding reviews on mathscinet are now in the article: they point out serious errors in Evans' mathematics, which have been confirmed by neutral reviewers for Mathematical Reviews. Some of these articles were referred to in the editorial of 't Hooft. Mathsci (talk) 22:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC) (I have removed the mathematical criticisms: please see below) Mathsci (talk) 23:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

"…only you have used…" – that is incorrect [1]. --Hans Adler (talk) 23:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Bad science usually is ignored by other scientists. Pseudoscience is almost always ignored. Here several people actually bother to write articles to refute his work. That's not bad, I think. Dosn't show notability, but gives the impression that his errors (published in peer-reviewed journals) were not of the "bad science" and "pseudoscience" varieties. --Crusio (talk) 22:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Serious errors in his mathematics were pointed out in published articles, confirmed in Mathematical Reviews. Is it up to wikipedians to make value judgements about that? 't Hooft pointed out in his editorial that refereeing for Foundations of Physics Letters had been lax, with a particular reference to the published papers of Evans. Mathsci (talk) 22:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment Sorry, but 't Hooft doesn't say a word about the laxity (or not) of refereeing in FPL. But do we really need to go into all these detailed discussions about whether this is pseudoscience or not? There pretty much seems to be consesnsus here that this article should be deleted regardless. --Crusio (talk) 05:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

(a) The mathematics has irretrievable problems (see the references here [2]). (b) 't Hooft wrote:

Between 2003 and 2005, the former Journal "Foundations of Physics Letters" (now subsumed into "Foundations of Physics") has published a series of papers by M.W. Evans. A partial list of these papers is given below. Together they would form a book that was intended to unleash a revolutionary paradigm switch in theoretical physics, rendering results in quantum field theory and general relativity, including the Standard Model, superstring theory and much of cosmology, obsolete. The magic word is ECE (Einstein-Cartan-Evans) theory, and the theory is claimed to have ignited frantic activities on the internet. In fact however, these activities have remained limited to personal web pages and are absent from the standard electronic archives, while no reference to ECE theory can be spotted in any of the peer reviewed scientific journals. This issue of Foundations of Physics now publishes 3 papers (G.W. Bruhn, F.W.Hehl, F.W. Hehl and Y.N.Obukhov) that critically analyse the ECE theory and its claims. M.W. Evans has declined the invitation to respond, referring to his web pages, http://atomicprecision.com. Taking into account the findings of Bruhn, Hehl and Obukhov, the discussion on ECE in the journal Foundations of Physics will be concluded herewith unless very good arguments are presented to resume the matter.

These editorial comments seem unambiguous: under the previous editor-in-chief of FPL, Alwyn van der Merwe, a long series of papers was accepted which presented a "new approach" to physics; however, the theory has been pointed out to have serious problems and therefore the journal will not publish any further papers on this topic. This shows a change in attitude to the previous editor, a friend of Evans, who accepted all Evans' papers: this could be summarised as laxness. In another editorial in the same journal, 't Hooft makes further comments:

During my first couple of months in this office, it became clear that fundamental questions in physics and philosophy also attract the interest of many laymen physicists. We receive numerous submissions from people who venture to attack the most basic premises of theories such as Special Relativity, but instead only succeed in displaying a lack of professional insight in how a physical theory is constructed. I suspect that some of these people may have been working somewhere in an attic, deprived from daylight for decades, determined only to reemerge with a Theory of Everything in their hands. Even though they may be very sincere, we have to disappoint such authors. New insights are gained only by intense interactions with professionals all over the globe, and by solidly familiarizing oneself with their findings, and we must make a selection from only those papers whose authors have a solid understanding of the topics they are discussing. Fortunately they also submit their work, and their clever inventiveness continues to surprise us. The foundations of our science are indeed very much worthwhile to be intensely studied. I am sure that progress of science strongly depends on the deep and daring insights that may be gained by taking a fresh look at the most basic facts that underly our present knowledge.

I can't see much room for confusion about what 't Hooft intended to say.

But yes, I agree absolutely with your last statement as I wrote below: the case for deletion does seem clear; and it is unnecessary to see what is crawling around under all these stones. Mathsci (talk) 07:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Do we really have to discuss all this here? Evans' theory may be pseudoscience, bad science, or just wrong. It's not a personal attack to argue for one of these, but I don't see how it's relevant to this deletion discussion. OTOH calling Evans himself names ("crank") is a personal attack (although WP:NPA is not directly applicable because Evans is not taking part in the discussion). A combined reading of WP:NPA and WP:BLP should make it plain that Looie496 has violated the spirit of our policies. It would be clearly unacceptable in the article (even with reliable sources), and it would be clearly unacceptable here if Evans was an established editor rather than someone who simply started editing because there was a Wikipedia article on hims with a severe BLP violation (a "pseudoscience" box with no appropriate sources for justification). Is it so hard to understand that BLP subjects are human beings, and that even if some of these human beings should need to be humiliated for some reason, it is never acceptable to do this on Wikipedia? --Hans Adler (talk) 23:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I just realised that Mathsci had not seen the personal attack when writing his last contribution, so part of what I just wrote is moot. --Hans Adler (talk) 23:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes that's correct. Sorry about the confusion. However, I am in agreement with you. In fact I just removed the mathematical criticisms from the article, even though they are technically correct. As you say, since notability has not been established and the subject has requested the removal of the BLP, we really don't need to go down that avenue at the moment. Thanks for your input. Mathsci (talk) 23:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I apologize for using the word "crank". I assumed that as a signed entry on a discussion page this would be seen as my personal opinion. Please substitute "determined proponent of a fringe theory". Looie496 (talk) 01:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment It looks like the discussion is tending towards deletion, and I'm fine with that. I just wanted to comment that if the article is deleted it should be because the subject is genuinely not notable or information about him is not verifiable, not because of concerns about the quality of his work. Even if it were to be established that his work were complete rubbish pseudoscience, this would not be a good argument for deletion. Wikipedia articles on pseudoscience provide a valuable service, by ideally being an unbiased (or at least neutral) description of the subject. We provide a resource that can help readers who have encountered a novel idea to determine whether it is accepted science, fringe science, or pseudoscience. We can't do that if we purge articles on pseudoscience topics from the 'pedia.

It's also not clear to me that the subject of an article on Wikipedia has standing to request its deletion. As long as the article is NPOV and properly cited, we should not cater to the wish of individuals to have unflattering information about themselves removed.--Srleffler (talk) 14:05, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Response: I agree completely. Some pseudoscience is well-known, widely-reported and needs to be included in WP (think homeopathy, astrology, and other such stuff). And subjects can ask modification of their bio if it contains mistakes (or worse, outright lies), but suppose Sarah Palin would request deletion of her WP bio, that would clearly not be in the interest of creating a good encyclopedia. In the present case, however, there is no evidence of notability under WP:ACADEMIC. Neither are there verifiable, independent sources arguing for notability under WP:BIO. So regardles of whether the work of this person falls under "sloppy, bad science", "pseudoscience", or "wrong science, but honest mistake", there is a clear-cut case for deletion here. --Crusio (talk) 15:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment There are two conflicting requirements: the need to alert WP readers to problems with fringe science (in this case ECE theory); and the more stringent rules for BLPs. In the past Evans tried to use his theory to justify the claims of the motionless electromagnetic generator crowd; more recently he tried the same thing with the Irish company Steorn. This sort of stuff is beyond the fringe. Perhaps one solution is to have articles describing several related fringe theories in physics, which are not biographical. Mathsci (talk) 16:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Evans is not just a pseudoscientist; he is an aggressive pseudoscientist. He takes legal action against those who point out obvious errors in his mathematics. In the past, such scare tactics have been used only by the paranormalists (Uri Geller's notorious [and failed] legal attempt to silence James Randi, for instance). Evans has thus placed himself beyond the pale of polite academic discourse. More seriously still, he attempts to propagandize influential non-scientists (with, for instance, civil dignitaries turning up at the bogus Santilli-Galilei academic award ceremony at his behest) and to influence political decisions about energy sourcing. His followers also occupy posts, at various levels, in the educational system; thus posing a threat to the optimum education of impressionable students. His inclusion in Wikipedia amounts to another attempt to 'baffle the gullible with science' and it is only fitting that he should limit himself to Marquis Who's Who entries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.107.2 (talk) 19:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment Are Mathsci and the previous anonymous vote are arguing for notability of Evans? --Crusio (talk) 17:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

No, not in the least. This is only the second edit of the anomymous IP, and should therefore be disqualified. Sreffler was one of the original contributors to the article, so was contacted by me as a matter of courtesy. He is familiar with the "zero point energy" crowd, as you could soon find out from his editing history; hence my comments. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 21:15, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Ironically, I think Crusio is right (and Mathsci has misinterpreted him). While the anon is arguing for deletion of the article, if what he/she says is true Evans would probably be notable and it would not be appropriate to delete. The anon has missed precisely the point I was trying to make above: bad science is not at all a justification for deleting an article. We want good, solid NPOV articles on bad science precisely to counter attempts to baffle people with propaganda elsewhere. The important issues here are whether Evans is actually notable, and whether information about him is verifiable. If there is independent media coverage of him taking legal action against detractors, propagandizing non-scientists, etc. then he is notable and these things should be covered in the article.

I am a bit uncomfortable that this AfD was initiated by Evans's request. Take a hypothetical example: Imagine someone intent on promoting a false image of himself and his work and using propaganda. Such a person might well be unhappy with Wikipedia's NPOV treatment, and might prefer to have WP say nothing rather than reveal things he might not want revealed. In such a case we would not be doing the public a service by complying with the person's request to delete his biography.--Srleffler (talk) 03:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I did not say he was notable as an academic; and notability is never established on wikipedia as the result of a posting by an anonymous SPA. The criteria are WP:V and WP:RS. The AfD was initiated by a complicated chain of events, which involved among other things Evans blanking the article (as Carrot18), possibly sending emails to WP, followed by administrative intervention on the article itself. Only the statements of 't Hooft were left in the article, as Daniel and Crusio had removed everything else. [3] [4][5][6] The primary purpose of BLPs is not as debunking pages for fringe theories by scientific nonentities. I took the trouble to locate academic sources which showed the science was hopelessly flawed: some time back I included the external link to 't Hooft's editorial (replacing a previous debunking page withdrawn by 't Hooft) and had quite recently included four articles, reviewed in MR, pointing out irretrievable errors in Evans' mathematics. [7] However, his academic career and his subsequent web presence fail notability in the sense of WP:PROF, as the majority of participants in this debate here have pointed out. Mathsci (talk) 06:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Note. Even if this BLP is deleted, anybody is free to write a non-biographical article on Einstein-Cartan-Evans theory, already listed on List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts, using as sources Evans' published work (his books), its published application to the motionless electromagnetic generator and the published criticisms already mentioned here. Mathsci (talk) 08:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment An interesting parallel can be found in this AfD, where people are arguing that someone is notable because somebody else published an article (not three or more as is the case here) to show that someone's work is flawed... Note that I am arguing in favor of deletion in both cases, though. --Crusio (talk) 23:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
weak delete Frankly, I'm a little surprised when I looked for sources that I couldn't find more since I've heard of Evans. Evans is arguably not a willing public figure in the sense that all he is doing is publishing his personal theory and nothing more. Thus, his request for deletion should be given some weight. Simply being an academic may not put you into the category of willing public figure. Given that Evans is of borderline notability and is not a public figure, deletion for seems reasonable. JoshuaZ (talk) 13:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
delete: Self-publicist at best. --AlisonW (talk) 17:21, 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. (non-admin closure) treelo _radda 00:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Curtis Payne

This character does not establish notability independent of its series. It only has a single award that is not enough to establish notability. Awards like that are generally covered in the main article. Without enough coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 11:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Redirect to Tyler Perry's House of Payne. Violates WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:OR, both of which are very poor reasons for a WP:SPINOUT. As the actor got an award for this role, there is a certain notability, but the award can be (and already is) covered in the main article. No prejudice against recreation if someone wants to write a proper article on him with real-world information (casting, development, reception) that doesn't fit in the main article. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep but consider a merge. The major character in a major series, so everything written about the series will discuss him also--there is no requirement for the works doing so to be primarily about him; the details can of course be taken appropriately from the preferred RS for this, the work itself. And there is no reason why a single award if significant is not enough for notability--the assertion that it would not be is unsupported by policy or practice here. This article has an interesting history. It was first boldly redirected by the nominator, without prior discussion. Since it was the major character & I myself am I reverted, the second step. According to WP policy this is to be followed by discussion on the talk page of the articles concerned; I myself am not familiar with the series and am going only by the articles involved. The nom. ignored that, and brought it here instead. This is an outright abuse of the AfD process--rather than discuss a redirect on the place concerned, it is brought to a different place, to discuss deletion. Clear example of forum shopping. If i weren't too personally involved in these discussions, I would consider closing this as the wrong place for the discussion. DGG (talk) 16:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- A few days ago,[8] you disapproved of TTN "continu[ing] to nominate 5 to 10 articles for deletion without considering the possibility of merge or redirect". Now you say it's abuse to do an AfD even after his considering a merger+redirect. That isn't cool. Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. – sgeureka ^t•c 17:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
  - Some form of discussion is generally a good idea, per WP:BRD. Hobit (talk) 19:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
    - to follow, up, there is more than one way to do it wrong. After one does something --any editing, not just a merge--and someone else reverts in good faith, the only proper course is to discuss. If one had known it would be controversial, I think it would have been better to discuss first, but if one thinks that nobody will object, it's fine to be bold--I sometimes make bold redirects for articles myself. But once it is reverted or objected to, and one wishes to press the point, one needs to follow through with the third step, discuss. And the place to discuss is the talk page of the article. All the more so if one took the option of using BRD in a case where one ought to know it is not uncontroversial. There is a reason for BRD--it will at least provoke discussion from opponents. But one has to be willing to make the effort to have a good faith discussion oneself. When I've objected nominating for deletion without considering merge or delete, that means that if merge or delete is a realistic possibility and you do not want it, one should address it in the argument. If one did want it one shouldn't have brought it here to AfD at all. DGG (talk) 23:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep Major character, major series. Significant award to the actor for playing this character. Hobit (talk) 17:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
keep Given that there was a notable award given for the portrayal of the character keeping seems optimal. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Do people ever actually think about weight when saying something like that? Do you really think that we need a unnecessary regurgitation of plot and original research just because the actor won a single award that fits right in the main article? TTN (talk) 19:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep Major character in a notable sitcom, I'm not seeing any OR, it seems to be referenced to the show which is fine. Primary sources are obviously best for character back story. RMHED (talk) 20:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep The character clearly establishes notability and the article isn't lacking in citations or content. UniversalBread (talk) 16:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Redirect - This might be too little, too late, but I just don't see individual notability here. If there was an award for this character, wouldn't that go towards the notability of the actor, not the character? Any descriptions of the character come from episode guides, which aren't in-depth independent coverage. This should be redirected to the main series page. TN‑X-Man 15:48, 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. MBisanz ^talk 19:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Identified (Vanessa Hudgens song)

Apparent hoax article. Song is certainly a real track, but no reliable sources for the information here. No sources in article. I can't find any official sources supporting any of the release information. The cover at the time I am nominating this is a cover I have already nominated for deletion as a hoax, as it falsely claims to be the cover of the Japanese album, not the American single. When the article was created, it was created with a fan-art cover found here..—Kww(talk) 11:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete. I couldn't find any reliable sources to verify what's written here. This is the only reliable looking website that outright says that Identified in the next single (says it is in Cosmo Girl magazine), but it's vague. I can't find any official information backing up any of the claims in the article. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 12:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete. This is obviously fake. The single cover is obviously fan made and it's different from Hudgens' other singles, since she uses CENTURY GOTHIC. And there aren't any sources available. And it peaked at number 98, for your information. Kikkokalabud (talk) 14:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete Bogus chart positions, totally incorrect info all about. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Fake or not, there's the issue of WP:CRYSTAL.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:06, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Good song, but isn't need this song have her own page. You can't look for a reference. Like Fabrictramp said, there's the issue of WP:CRYSTAL.--Pedrovip | talk to me 16:14, 12 October 2008

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 19:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Lieutenant Bad Apple

Contested proposed deletion. A short film uploaded to youtube as an entry for a competition. Original research, fails Wikipedia:Notability. See also the discussion on the talk page for the article. Jll (talk) 11:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 11:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete Vanity piece by the looks of it. Non notable and entirely OR. --neon white talk 12:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete No indication of notability. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Strong Delete — Take your pick: not original publisher of thought, not for plot summaries, lack of verifiable sources, vanity, processed meat from Hormel. MuZemike (talk) 16:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete and destroy the hard drive it was stored on. O.R. and simply not any more notable than the multitude of other videos on youtube. Amazing how of these we get all the way to AFD. PHARMBOY (TALK) 19:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete Being popular on Youtube is not notability on Wiki. Has this film won awards? Has this film been reviewed in WP:RS? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 09:18, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete per NN. We66er (talk) 18:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete nn. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 07:35, 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) 08:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Andrew Anthony

Delete. Unreferenced, non-notable local government politician, fails WP:POLITICIAN guideline. WWGB (talk) 10:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 11:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Weak delete. There's some references on the talk page, but they don't provide conclusive proof of notability as some of them are just mentions of the person. Could probably satisfy WP:N with another source or 2 that covers Mr Anthony significantly. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:06, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete Being a local politician doesn't make you automatically notable, and (as far as I can see) the links given on the talk page are just local media: local officials around my hometown of 800 people are in the local news rather often, but that doesn't make them notable. Nyttend (talk) 03:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete simply being a councillor in a sacked council is not notable. Michellecrisp (talk) 01:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete per User:Michellecrisp, as far as I can see this person has not done anything noteworthy or been the recipient of nontrivial third party coverage. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:24, 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 19:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Flaming Rapetime

Delete. Unreferenced, non-notable cocktail, contested prod. Wikipedia is not a cocktail guide. WWGB (talk) 10:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete, no ghits except ones related to the Wikipedia article, fails Wikipedia:Notability Jll (talk) 11:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete - I've never heard of this thing. I think it may simply something someone made up one day, probably more recently than the date given in the article. AlexTiefling (talk) 18:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment Additionally, the recipe is for the well-known Black Russian. AlexTiefling (talk) 18:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete as a not notable neo. And I thought that black russians had milk in them? (ie: then add a dash of coke and you have a Colorado Bulldog). Then again, I haven't worked in a bar for a few years now. PHARMBOY (TALK) 19:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Further comment - On reflection, this strikes me as being likely to be a speedy candidate. 1) The obviously deliberately controversial title/cocktail name seems to have been made up simply to splash the word 'rape' across Wikipedia in inappropriate contexts - a violation of WP:POINT; 2) The cartoon series referenced in the (incoherent) etymology doesn't exist, suggesting that this is a complete hoax and thus vandalism; 3) The person named in the etymology is (if real, of course) being libelled - making this an attack page. And of course we have the usual tell-tale references to 'rumour', etc. I declare the article to be a steaming heap of horseshit. AlexTiefling (talk) 19:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- Then speedy tag it and see what happens. Or declare WP:SNOW and see if an admin notices and agrees. PHARMBOY (TALK) 20:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not necessarily arguing for notability, but I've seen this served by name in at least three student bars (in different cities). And regarding point 2, Alex, you obviously didn't go to the trouble of typing Morning Glory into Google before proclaiming that it doesn't exist. Aquae (talk) 21:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete (speedy or otherwise). It is not only a Black Russian (above is thinking of a White Russian), but almost al the background info sounds like a hoax.Yobmod (talk) 14:32, 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) 08:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

List of former child actors from the Czech Republic

A list with one member. Delete. Horselover Frost (talk) 10:29, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete A non-notable and highly trivial list. doktorb _words^deeds 10:47, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Really, that's all you can say. There's one person listed here, so it's not a list. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 11:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete List is completely useless when it's just the one member. --Banime (talk) 12:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep Now there are 3 names. How many names does it take to keep a list? For An Angel (talk) 17:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment Are they notable names? With citations? Could they have acceptable stand-alone articles with this article name as a category? doktorb _words^deeds 17:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes to all 3 questions. For An Angel (talk) 17:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

~~*Delete~~. Good attempt at rescue, but it seems like a very useless intersection of 4 criteria (former, child, actor, Czech). If no sources make this connection, i don't see why we should. There must be a list of child actors article, Czech members can be included there until the list becomes too long, and the lines of splitting it are decided on the talk page.Yobmod (talk) 14:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Changed to keep, as the List of child actors redirects to articles about the US only. Otherstuffexists is not a keep reason, but all these lists need to be sorted out together, which is too complicated for an AfD debate. Either a merge needs to be made, or all "List of (timeframe) (age) (job) from (place)" articles are non-trivial, or all should be deleted. I changed the redirect to the relevant catergory, there are 30 of these lists already.Yobmod (talk) 14:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment Just so everyone knows, back in May I helped to split the articles List of child actors & List of former child actors because they were getting too big. Those two articles were redirected to List of current child actors from the United States & List of former child actors from the United States and all the actors that weren't American were moved to their own lists by country. See the discussion from Talk:List of current child actors from the United States and all of the new lists under Category:Lists of child actors by nationality. I would rather not have to merge them all again as it took me days to split them in the first place. For An Angel (talk) 00:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete. (1) Czech Republic was established on Jan 1 1993, so by definition there aren't very many former child actors. (2) There were hundreds to thousands Czech child actors and the present 3 names are anything but representative. This type of lists should be removed from Wikipedia, this is task for a database query against IMDb. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 17:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- Question You said that by definition there aren't that many former child actors from the Czech Republic but then you say that there were hundreds to thousands of them? Well, which one is it? Are you also saying that all of the lists under Category:Lists of child actors by nationality should be deleted because this is a job for IMDb? I'll also ask my previous question again. How many names would it take to keep this list? For An Angel (talk) 21:50, 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. MBisanz ^talk 19:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Dariush Kashani

Unremarkable minor actor. No feature roles in movie or television. Google news search finds passing mention (cast list) in a few theatre reviews. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 10:01, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Comment AFD was blanked and replaced with "To call someone an unremarkable actor sounds like defamation of character. Please remove these words and this entry. It's malicious." by article creator Gingerhillinc (talk · contribs). I'll leave a note on their talk page. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:07, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete, a longer than usual listing of roles on IMDB, but as far as I can see they are all minor bit parts and the like. I strongly doubt that he meets the WP:ENTERTAINER notability guideline. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC).
Delete can't find anything more than passing mentions in sources (with the possible exception of this, but it still doesn't provide more than a sentence discussing the him). Hut 8.5 09:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete for non-notability. And, for what it's worth, the article creator has been indef blocked for making legal threats over this, and also has some serious COI problems. AKRadecki^Speaketh 00:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- While the creator was blocked, they have been unblocked, but based on comments on my talk page I doubt they will be returning to Wikipedia. In any case, that shouldn't be a factor in whether or not to keep or delete this article. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete; article is completely unsourced, appears to have been authored by the subject's publicist, manager, or agent, and other than a list of minor roles on IMDB, is unverifiable by reference to mainstream reliable sources. The only things I see are personal web pages or social/networking sites like Plaxo or Classmates. --MCB (talk) 05:41, 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 merge to Loyola College in Maryland. (non-admin closure) treelo _radda 00:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Loyola College Rugby Football Club

This is about a "club" team - it is different from other college sports because it is indepedent of the NCAA and the university's athletic department. See http://www.loyola.edu/athletic/ - the "Intercollegiate Athletics" link goes to the teams supported by athletic department. Rugby is in the "Recreational Sports" section and is a club team.

I cannot find any outside media sources devoting any attention to this team

Perhaps most important, I do not see any other Wikipedia articles about other teams.

In summary I feel it fails notability. Omarcheeseboro (talk) 10:01, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete fails notability criteria.--Boffob (talk) 13:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Is this what you are looking for?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bc_rugby http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairfield_University_Men%27s_Rugby_Football_Club http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clemson_Rugby http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:College_rugby http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/College_rugby Interzil (talk) 16:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I stand corrected. I apologize for that. There are still no outside sources included in this article to assert notability. The one external reference says nothing about the Loyola Rugby team. The loyala.edu links say nothing about the Rugby team either. Thank You --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 18:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 20:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Merge to Loyola College in Maryland, the content makes sense there and can be expanded until there are sufficient reliable sources to justify an independent article and the redirect there is useful to readers. DoubleBlue (Talk) 20:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep. Rugby is not a sanctioned NCAA sport, and is played, as a result, by clubs at the college level. It is notable for that fact, and Loyola's rugby club has a claim of notability on that basis. I would suggest an expansion tag be placed on the article for more sourcing.Yachtsman1 (talk) 22:43, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

So every single club team at every single University is notable enough for a Wikipedia article? --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 14:49, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Merge and Redirect to Loyola College in Maryland. Content can be expanded there until such time that sufficient third party reliable sources exist to justify its own article. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Merge and Redirect to Loyola College in Maryland, obviously. TerriersFan (talk) 15:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
keep Run checks on the cited sources to check for legitimacy. If poor, edit. The Loyola College in Maryland article is very poor, and it will only burden it.Interzil (talk) 20:45, 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 withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure). Special K(KoЯn flakes) 16:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Rom baro

Lacks notability, possible hoax and no references. Dicdef. Quick Google search turns up a few results, but not enough for a decent article. Belongs in Wiktionary if notable, but not here. Special K(KoЯn flakes) 08:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC) I withdraw my nomination because it is decently sourced and bigger than a dicdef, and to save this discussion dragging out any longer. Special K(KoЯn flakes) 16:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete - No sources; probable hoax. AlexTiefling (talk) 18:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete Unsourced but even if it was sourced (and notable!), belongs in Wiktionary. MvjsTalking 10:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Go to the library, folks. Shii (tock) 05:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, I guess I need to respond to the lazy argument that this is non-notable. The concept of a "big man" in pre-industrial hierarchies is taught in Anthro 101 and the rom baro is a prime example. As all cultures are different it should not be merged, although maybe a general article about the hierarchies of Roma society should be created. There are no Google hits because Roma are severely understudied. Shii (tock) 05:28, 16 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) 09:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Relisting because sources were added at the last moment by Shii. Stifle (talk) 09:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: See also Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 October 16.

Delete per WP:WINAD. Stifle (talk) 09:11, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete. the sources just show that this is a WP:Dictdef.Yobmod (talk) 11:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Agree with rationale already provided above by Universal Cereal Bus (talk · contribs), Mvjs (talk · contribs), Stifle (talk · contribs), and Yobmod (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 14:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —Cirt (talk) 14:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —Cirt (talk) 14:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. —Cirt (talk) 14:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Cirt (talk) 15:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Cirt (talk) 15:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep, already more than a dicdef, and 61 Google Books hits show it is obviously expandable into an article about the concept rather than the word. (And even so, encyclopedic articles on words are perfectly acceptable here.) —An gr 15:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep – The discussion, verified to a source, of how a baro is selected is encyclopedic content, not part of a dictionary definition. The article needs expansion, not deletion. Alternatively, it could be merged to an article about the hierarchal structures in Roma culture, or a potential new section of Romani society and culture. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:36, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Update – I've added two more sources. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:06, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete. This is just a dictionary definition which at best warrants one or two sentences in the Roma people article. Either way, WP:WINAD firmly applies. JBsupreme (talk) 05:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- Do you admit the possiblity that this article can become more than a dicef? 210.134.98.134 (talk) 01:30, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
  - There won't be any problem recreating it later with more information. Stifle (talk) 12:48, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
    - It has plenty of information already to avoid deletion. Even in its current state this article doesn't come close to violating WP:WINAD. This article is no dicdef. —An gr 20:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Merge into a section of Big man (anthropology) just like the one on Papua New Guinea Big man system section in that article.--GDibyendu (talk) 15:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep: Hey, the content is has now been sourced. Thanks to whoever did it. --KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 07:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep Delist this nomination from list of India-related deletion discussions - nothing to do with India here. --GPPande talk! 17:31, 25 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) 08:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Återförödelse (album)

Delete. Another nonnotable album from the band without an article. Fails WP:MUSIC. Wolfer68 (talk) 08:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Speedy delete Reason #498 why I want A7 expanded to albums. Band has no article. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete to the third power - non-notable album by a non-notable act on a non-notable label (yes, I challenge the assertion of notability of the label on its article). B.Wind (talk) 02:45, 16 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) 04:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Emer O'Loughlin

Delete. The article does not indicate why the deceased, or her murder, were notable. WWGB (talk) 08:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:08, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

My apologies for not editing this page to include much more information as yet, I am new to Wikipedia editing. This page is a joint effort between three people, all of whom, close to the deceased. As for notable, a case such as this is notable depending on where you live, if you live in the villages or towns of the Republic of Ireland, everyone knows of the case, it hits the communities hard. I will be sure to include a line stating that if you allow the page to be left live for just a while longer. The whole county of Clare in Ireland heard of this case and realise that this is not an everyday occurrence to them, its the sort of case which just takes you by Storm, despite the troubles in Ireland. Thank You, —Preceding unsigned comment added by SportingShooter06 (talk • contribs) 22:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment. If you are all "close to the deceased" then perhaps you should read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. WWGB (talk) 23:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I have taken on board the points on that page, personally, I have been trying to put across a neutral point of view, another editor is not. I realise it is not the purpose of Wikipedia to promote cases for the benefit of one side only. It is difficult to be completely unbiased, however, I have agreed with the other two editors, that I will write the rest of the page, seen as the only information to stay on the page was posted by myself. I hope you can appreciate that it takes a great deal to write about something such as this. Thank you for letting it stay live for that bit longer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SportingShooter06 (talk • contribs) 09:40, 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) 00:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

~~Strong~~ Keep By searching google news using ALL dates] you find 8 wp:rs hits. This passes notability and reliable sources. The rest can be fixed with tags and perhaps helping the new editor out. Notability policy says that subject must be verifiable, NOT verified. Again, that's what tags are for, not AFD. PHARMBOY (TALK) 01:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment. The last media interest was more than two years ago. Sadly, people are murdered every day. What puts this incident above WP:ONEEVENT? WWGB (talk) 02:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The amount of coverage in Ireland. Maybe. I understand that the article is thin and the fact that is unsolved is the main reason for the coverage, but with several wp:rs sources, it seems to pass. If nothing else, WWGB says cover the event, not the person, which would mean a move to different title, not a delete. I'm not claiming to be ironclad about this (and fully understand your argument), but this is what I am reading in the policy here when taken literally. I am all ears to hear other precedents and learn something new. Is there another article it can be merged into, if it is borderline? PHARMBOY (TALK) 11:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

other comment Read the intro for JonBenét Ramsey which says that the main notability is the longevity and the media interest. This article isn't at THAT level, but where is the threshold? idunno. PHARMBOY (TALK) 11:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete, Wikipedia is no a memorial. Stifle (talk) 13:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, kur ykh 07:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete, no particular encyclopedic notability: neither for the person nor for the murder case. `'Míkka >t 08:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Strong keep. The article could use expansion and more detail, but it's clearly notable. Fumoses (talk) 13:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete - WP:BLP1E applies here. Marasmusine (talk) 14:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete per WP:BLP1E. I don't see anything in this article that would make this case noteworthy among the many tragic unsolved murder cases that exist. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:58, 23 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) 08:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Odd Senses

Requesting delete per WP:CRYSTAL. No sources and couldn't find anything that confirms its release Wolfer68 (talk) 08:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete Fails music and crystal ball policies doktorb _words^deeds 09:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom. ww2censor (talk) 16:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete as WP:CRYSTAL. Also issues with promo/ver/nn. Guliolopez (talk) 01:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep Original Author: Dates of recording referenced from official PsyOpus site and one song is online. I believe this confirms the album's existence. Dan.noye (talk) 16:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan.noye (talk • contribs) 16:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete - previous post confirms that the article is crystal balling. Until a definitive release date is announced by the label or the act, the recording does not officially exist. B.Wind (talk) 02:53, 16 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. unsourced Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Leone Sextus Denys Oswolf Fraudatifilius Tollemache-Tollemache de Orellana Plantagenet Tollemache-Tollemache

non-notable WWI captain, whose dubious claim to fame is having a long name. I can't find it now but I know we have an article listing unusual names, unless this too has been deleted for bordering on trivial original research. doktorb _words^deeds 08:29, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

List of unusual personal names is probably what you're thinking of, he doesn't appear there. the wub "?!" 09:06, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete - not notable apart from his magniloquent name, and the references don't confirm that. JohnCD (talk) 15:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Weak keep - Guinness World Record holder for longest surname. AlexTiefling (talk) 18:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment - the article doesn't say that, in fact it says it's a "common misconception" and his surname was actually just "Tollemache-Tollemache." JohnCD (talk) 19:18, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment — Johann Gambolputty de von Ausfern -schplenden -schlitter -crasscrenbon -fried -digger -dangle -dungle -burstein -von -knacker -thrasher -apple -banger -horowitz -ticolensic -grander -knotty -spelltinkle -grandlich -grumblemeyer -spelterwasser -kürstlich -himbleeisen -bahnwagen -gutenabend -bitte -eine -nürnburger -bratwustle -gerspurten -mit -zweimache -luber -hundsfut -gumberaber -shönendanker -kalbsfleisch -mittler -raucher von Hautkopft of Ulm is not on that list. MuZemike (talk) 03:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Comment - I've looked into this a bit more, and it seems that the subject is definitely famous for the misconception (found in sources like older Guinness Books of Records, eg 1974) that the last six words of his name were a single surname. The claim may be false, but it's notably false. I'm sticking with 'keep'. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Commment You're saying 'keep' because of a misconception thirty years ago ? The person himself is not notable, the story behind his name IS. That surely fails notability rules. doktorb _words^deeds 17:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure. Having looked at List of unusual personal names, I'd definitely endorse a merge (and the inclusion of LSDOFfT-TdOP Tollemache-Tollemache's curiously named siblings) in that article, as an alternative to retention. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:32, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete, only trivially notable. Optional redirect to List of unusual personal names. Stifle (talk) 13:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Redirect to subject's father, Ralph Tollemache. Any biographical detail of import can be added to the list there. Choess (talk) 00:05, 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 19:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Bay Area Asian Unity

I previously nominated this article for speedy deletion as blatant advertising. Author responded by removing speedy tag, but, to be fair, got rid of all the obvious marketing phrases. However, the claims to notability are still very weak. I put a notability tag on but help off further action until the author had a chance to properly assert notabilty. Nothing has been done in the last two weeks. No hits on Google other than Wikipedia article. The only argument I can see in its defence is that the early ad-ridden version[9] there's a list of "BAAU accomplishments" which says all of the events were recorded in newspapers. That might just qualify as a claim to notability, but since it doesn't say which newspapers they were I can't comment any further. I'll leave this up to you lot. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete - sounds a worthy organisation, but no evidence of notability. JohnCD (talk) 15:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Speedy delete - no assertion of notability. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 16:06, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Can't find notability in gsearch or gnews search. Only hits are wiki/mirrors and the organization's own site.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete Per Fabrictramp. Article does nothing to assert notability. MvjsTalking 09:40, 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 01:21, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

J. D. Cronise

No decent information, all claims which can be challenged. No information readily available. Andre666 (talk) 07:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:13, 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, treelo _radda 00:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Merge and redirect to The Sword. I see him mentioned plenty within the band, but no individual notability outside, no solo interviews, etc. PHARMBOY (TALK) 00:48, 17 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} 00:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete per nom. There are no reliable sources to speak of. JBsupreme (talk) 04:51, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete per the nom, as a non-plausible search term. Fails to establish notability outside of the band per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 12:34, 20 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 to delete. There is a fairly strong consensus that the article's contents should be merged somewhere and the article should be redirected somewhere, and I would encourage a discussion on the talk page as to exactly where that should be. Stifle (talk) 08:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Chance and Community Chest cards

The whole article is mostly unsourced, (the references at the bottom don't point to any place in the text) the middle 80% of it is listcruft on what each card contains. The lead is really the only relevant part to the page, and that can be merged into a section at Monopoly (game) CTJF83Talk 07:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete as unsourced, and besides I can see no basis for using so much space on this particular aspect of the game vs. others. WillOakland (talk) 08:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep. Needs a good decruftifying and sourcing, thats all. The general popularity of monopoly has caused numerous element's of the game, such as the chance cards, to assume greater cultural importance in the United States (and possibly elsewhere) that equivalent elements in similar games. Horselover Frost (talk) 10:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Do you have any evidence that it has "assume[d] greater cultural importance"? They would both be fine having a section on the Monopoly page. CTJF83Talk 15:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep. per Horselover. The Community Chest card has also inspired a popular T-Shirt. DollyD (talk) 11:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete — Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. MuZemike (talk) 16:06, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete or merge selectively per WP:N and WP:IINFO. "inspired a popular t-shirt" is not a compelling argument since I can go to cafe-press today and be "inspired to create" a t-shirt on anything. Should I use the "New Jersey Girls aren't Trash, Trash gets Picked Up" shirts and write an article about girls from New Jersey? The preponderance of the article is devoted to what the cards read in each edition. The material in the lead, presuming that it is sourced to the reference at the bottom, would be perfect for the main Monopoly article. But as is, the article is not inside our inclusion guidelines. Protonk (talk) 16:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Strong Delete This is game guide material if I ever saw it. Further, I think this is probably a copyright violation. Hobit (talk) 19:29, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete, do not pass Go Proof that not all trivia is interesting, and a reminder of why trivia sections are discouraged on Wikipedia. The article is apparently about former versions of those orange and yellow cards in previous editions of Monopoly. Happily, there is a Monopoly Wiki where minutiae like this can be preserved [10], and maybe this "history" can live on somewhere else. Mandsford (talk) 23:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep Monopoly itself is culturally significant, and Chance and Community Chest cards are one of the most significant aspects of the game. Many chance-based games (not just board games) use cards drawn from the top of a deck, and that phenomenon all started with the Chance and Community Chest cards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dstebbins (talk • contribs) 13:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm trying to imagine how poker was played before Monopoly started the trend of drawing cards from the top of the deck. Mandsford (talk) 16:56, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Ya, they may be important to the game, but not important enough for their own article on Wikipedia. CTJF83Talk 19:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete as game guide material. --Craw-daddy | T | 20:40, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Merge the non-game guide material to teh Monopoly article. -- Whpq (talk) 16:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Merge appropriate materials to Chance card and Community Chest cards, then delete this article. Redirection is not an option as this would have two equally valid targets. This article cannot stand per WP:NOT, plus there is a definite lack of sourcing. B.Wind (talk) 03:05, 16 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-admin closure) treelo _radda 00:11, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Fractal generating software

Article seems to be a personal essay with more opinion than fact. Cites no reliable sources. Even with major cleanup, article cites no facts that can be verified. Delete TheRingess (talk) 06:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

The first two paragraphs do not contain opinions, the last two do. Would you be happy if I deleted the last two paragraphs?

Nearly every statement in the first paragraph can be easily verified. A minority of the statements in the second paragraph are of such a nature as to be not so easily checked.

I have cleaned up the article somewhat in line with your comments. What do you think?

Do you really think there is no need for an article on this topic? Soler97 (talk) 07:06, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete as an essay (original research). A list article could be useful. WillOakland (talk) 08:08, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Comment I've re-written and tidied up the article so it is less of an essay. The list of programs is supported by a reference (but perhaps not a reliable source); the list of features is still OR. At present I'm neutral on whether the article should be deleted or not, but I could come down off the fence if someone can provide more references. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Comment Tagging for rescue, as I believe the subject is notable and encyclopedic, even if the article in question needs work. Jclemens (talk) 14:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Weak keep - This topic could be a useful index or a notable topic and there is no reason that it can't cite sources. It was nominated for deletion just over half an hour after creation, while it was still being frequently edited by the original author. I dislike AfD being used on stubs that are obviously being improved. This being said, I'd probably be inclined to agree with deletion if the page looked identical a month from now. --Karnesky (talk) 14:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep per Give an article a chance. I agree with the above saying that there has to be sources out there for this. MuZemike (talk) 16:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep - looks saveable to me, though it needs a lot of work still. Grutness...wha? 00:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep. May have looked like an essay at time of nomination, but now it looks like a list and can be kept per WP:LIST. --Itub (talk) 06:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

As the original author, I am quite happy with its current list form. It won't win any awards, but so what? It seems informative, neutral and to the point. What puzzles me is what reasons people have for wanting to delete the article in its present form. Surely not every 'reasonable' and uncontentious statement needs a citation? Soler97 (talk) 03:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Response to Soler97 Pretty much, yes. Wikipedia's verifiability policy says "any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation". At the moment the list of fractal generating programs is attributed to a source (although not necessarily a reliable source), but the list of features of such programs is not attributed, which contravenes the policy. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. It seems to me that none of the claims of the article is "likely to be challenged". No-one has made a challenge so far, and I would be very surprised if anyone made a challenge in good faith, unless it was on a minor technicality or clarification. The article represents basic common knowledge for people who have used fractal generators. Surely, basic common knowledge on a well-defined subject that is easily checked by anyone who wants to do so does not require references from published sources. An article on soap does not need to cite references for the fact that many people use soap to wash. Or am I barking up the wrong tree? Soler97 (talk) 23:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep and add sources, dead boring but notable enough to be written about, add sources. Here are a few online searchable books.[11] -- Banjeboi 16:28, 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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 08:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Loaded language

An original research essay. The article says that "loaded language" is language that appeals to emotion rather than logic and then goes on to give some examples. What it doesn't do is establish that this is a notable expression. Redddogg (talk) 06:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete. Widespread usage of the terms "loaded language/phrase/expression" is easily verified, but that is dictionary material. This article is a series of editor-chosen examples padded out with two unrelated subjects. WillOakland (talk) 08:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete but maybe move to Wikiversity where it would be more suitable. Original research is accepted there. --Walmwutter (talk) 09:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Weak keep. Notable term (unlike "num") but needs verifiable sources. Tezkag72 (talk) 23:40, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep but strongly advise a complete rewrite. Needs more verifiable sources and references. 76.117.235.39 (talk) 13:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep The topic is evidently notable. Per our editing policy, the need for more work upon the article is not a reason to delete. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:19, 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. MBisanz ^talk 19:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Never Heard of It

Article about an unsigned band. The article contains some assertions of notability (numbers of CD) but they are not supported by any reliable sources (short blurbs in directories and self-published info only). Falls far from WP:MUSIC, and fails verifiability. — Coren ^(talk) 05:43, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete no reliable sources about this band CTJF83Talk 06:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Sigh. While I hate to say it about a band whose music I've got on my iPod, I've just spent an hour trying to dig up sources for the international touring and so forth. The closest I've been able to get to reaching WP:MUSIC is that they won an Electronic Arts competition in 2007 that I can't find much of anything else about. Beyond that, unfortunately, nothing. Emo delete. Tony Fox (arf!) 07:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Weak delete. There are plenty of assertions of notability and plenty of sources out there to support them. Problem is, none seem to satisfy WP:RS. I'm sure there's gonna be some out there somewhere, just a case of finding them! Unless any can be found, I can't really see the article staying. Nouse4aname (talk) 11:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete per WP:MUSIC. Unsigned band. The primary claim here is their claimed number of CD sales, but when examined that doesn't hold up: it says that's their total number of sales, and divided by the 7 releases mentioned it averages out to less thn 3% of what they'd need to have a gold record in the US. And even that weak claim isn't sourced, nor is anything else in the article. Note that the article says they're split/defunct, and while that certainly isn't cause to delete on its own it also means no additional notability is forthcoming. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete A bit off-key in regard to WP:MUSIC. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:31, 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 delete. Cirt (talk) 11:59, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The Tribe (series 1)

Appears to be original research with no citations aside from a single external link at the bottom of the page. This article appears to have little context and reads as if it comes directly from a fanzine. If the unsourced information is removed, there would be nothing left, and the equally unsourced List of The Tribe seasons has a summary already for the first season. I am also nominating the following related pages because they have the same problems:

B.Wind (talk) 05:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Redirect All to The Tribe (TV series) CTJF83Talk 06:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete all - they're all plot summary; and redirect seems pointless - who's going to search on "The Tribe (series 1}" rather than "The Tribe"? JohnCD (talk) 15:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete all per JohnCD. Stifle (talk) 09:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
delete. no redirect, as the parantheses make it a non-vialve search term.Yobmod (talk) 11:59, 16 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 20:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Breathing Room

Article tagged in May for notability issues. "Citations" section does not establish notability of film, does not meet criteria for Wikipedia:Notability (films). Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete Sounds notable to me, but you can't know that it grossed $500,000 cos there's nothing there to back it up. That rules out its only claim to notability. Special K(KoЯn flakes) 08:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
~~Temp~~ Weak Keep per improvements noted below ~~as I am giving the article a sandblasting and major cleanup.~~ Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:46, 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) 00:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

- With apolgies, I have been away on projects and though have had internet access, have been away from my home resources. Will sandblast this evening and see if it can be made properly encyclopedic. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:03, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Update: I have finished cleanup, sourcing, wikifying, adding external links and reviews, etc. The article is better. Needs a few more tweaks. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:16, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

There issue here appears to be the reliability (or not) of the sources. Some discussion of this would helpful for closing this either way. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the sources listed are okay, for a low budget horror movie. That plus the festival listings make me say the article is good enough to Keep. raven1977 (talk) 19:42, 23 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 19:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Michael Andrew Roth

Fails WP:PROF. No third party references. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 04:29, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete An associate professor of mathematics does not seem very notable. Let him do some more stuff before writing an article on him. Redddogg (talk) 06:24, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete. He works in algebraic geometry, which is perhaps the toughest area of pure math in terms of obtaining new results and where people do not publish a lot. I checked MathSciNet and he has 7 papers listed there (which does seem to be a bit low even for algebraic geometry). Two of them are in top-notch journals: one in Inventiones Mathematicae [12] and one in Crelle's Journal [13] That's very good but, in the absence of additional evidence, not good enough for passing WP:PROF. Citation hits, both in googlescholar and in mathscinet, are pretty low and neither the WP article nor his webpage give any other information (such as honors/awards, journal editorships, etc) that might indicate passing WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 11:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:07, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete. The article does not give any evidence of passing WP:PROF nor can I find such evidence elsewhere. As Nsk92 reports, the publication record looks slim. I'm sure Queens U. had good reason for promoting him to associate but that's not enough to persuade me that he's notable enough to maintain an article on him here. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:07, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete; the article makes no assertions of notability, and the Wikipedians above, who are skilled at data dumping in this field, find none. On a side-note, Gregory G Smith was created by the same editor from the same template, with the only real claim of notability the Aisenstadt Prize, and might stand looking at from someone who is more familiar with the field.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:32, 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 The Quarrymen. Nothing there to merge, really. Stifle (talk) 09:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The Dissenters

Despite initial enthusiasm for any article related to the Beatles, it appears from the paucity of sources that "The Dissenters" was not a functioning group, and certainly not a musical group. It was a nickname they gave themselves but they were never a notable functioning entity. Propose deleting and merging into the articles on the "members" and the pub that bears the plaque.. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete not a notable group CTJF83Talk 06:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete and merge per nom: this is less than a stub-class even, lacking sources etc. Could be easily added to pertinent articles as an additional note. Coldmachine^Talk 07:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Merge content to The Quarrymen, assuming that there are WP:RS for that content. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Comment If merged, add a hatnote to Quarrymen about dissenters. Nyttend (talk) 03:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Merge An afternoon booze-up idea. Not anywhere near enough for an article.--andreasegde (talk) 14:23, 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) 09:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Illmind

Non-notable producer. Has worked with a few notable artist but not on any notable tracks. Tagged for notability and expansion since March 2008. Fails WP:MUSIC. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 15:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 15:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 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, NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 04:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete Worked with notable artists but nothing himself. We wouldn't give an article to the guy who produced Nirvana's lost demo tape, Echo and the Bunnymen's flop and Cream's first single which failed to chart, so this one should go. Special K(KoЯn flakes) 08:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Obvious Keep, producer for Little Brother, Sean Price, Boot Camp Clik, El Da Sensei, Supastition, Akrobatik etc. The fact that in this context producer means creator of the musical track is just one of many things wrong with KoЯn flakes' analogy above. WP:MUSIC doesn't say anything about producers of any stripe, and can be overruled by common sense in any case. 86.44.31.100 (talk) 16:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

illmind reviewed in in the NYT illmind in Scheme illmind in prefixmag illmind in Akrobatik review in Seattle Post Intelligencer blog 86.44.31.100 (talk) 16:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment Times piece is a two sentence writeup of his Jay-Z remix album, in an article that writes up twelve different Jay-Z remix albums. Post-Intelligencer link is similarly trivial. As mentioned in the nom, there is no indication that any of the tracks he's produced are notable—working with a notable artist does not transfer notability to the producer. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 16:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

there is no indication that any of the tracks he's produced are notable He produced (that is, produced and created the musical tracks) on half the last Little Brother album; am I to understand this was the non-notable half?

Early in his career he released an album under his own name on bbe / beat generation. Had he continued in this vein he would be notable per WP:Music as an artist in his own right; he would also have close to zero impact on hip hop as opposed to now. 86.44.27.95 (talk) 23:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see that any one track on that album is particularly notable. If you'd like to show me that I'm mistaken please provide more information (chart success, etc.). If his work on the album was particularly notable, then surely there must be plenty of media coverage lauding his work, singing his praises. Similarly, if his impact on hip hop is so great, where is the coverage? —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 00:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not that his impact is truly great, it's that it's much more significant (reaching many more thousands) than if he had continued in a vein (making producer albums under his own name) that would have made him compliant with WP:MUSIC as an artist. And it's not that you're mistaken insofar as you are trying to match him to various strictures in WP:MUSIC (as artist, as songwriter, as composer) but not looking at the body of work (which is to me self-evident as notable). Coverage will be along the lines outlined above unless he a) goes back to releasing under his own name b) dies or c) becomes a superstar producer (of which there are few). 86.44.27.95 (talk) 04:47, 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) 09:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Edgardo Torres-Caballero

Contested prod. Fails WP:BIO. Has 13 Google News hits, but these seem all to be articles where he is interviewed about a Government project (e.g. [14]), no articles in part or completely about him. This is also indicated by the only 28 distinct Google hits about him[15]. Article has also serious COI problems, but that in itself is no reason for deletion. Fram (talk) 07:28, 7 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} 04:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete Sounds like self-promotion and very little claim to notability. Special K(KoЯn flakes) 08:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:15, 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. Cirt (talk) 12:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Infiltration Unit Zeta

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) 01:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Merge it seems appropriate to use some of the material in this article as the basis for a new section in The Zeta Project article on the main character. Jeremiah (talk) 01:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 09:45, 7 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}_work 03:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep main character in a notable series (if only just notable) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
That is not a reason for the character to have an article. Notability is not inherited from the parent topic. It has to be established on its own using reliable third party sources. TTN (talk) 14:06, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete Not covered in third party sources. No sources cited. No context provided for the reader (I certainly can't tell from the lede what this is or what shows it was on). Zero Gnews hits (all dates archive search). Web searches are primarily fansites and mirrors. No book hits. Can't see a reason to keep it. Protonk (talk) 16:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Article doesn't establish notability. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete due to the lack of third-party coverage. Stifle (talk) 09:03, 16 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) 09:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Cine TAM

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

There is absolutely no evidence that this is notable. Unless this theater has become some kind of local icon (which, because I do not read Portugese, I cannot determine from sources), there is no reason for it to have its own article. As an example, consider Regal Entertainment Group, which is definitely notable. But do we have an article for every one of their movie theaters--despite the fact that most are likely to have some kind of local newspaper coverage? TallNapoleon (talk) 21:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep - TallNapoleon, Cine TAM is one entity with one theater; it is owned by the TAM Airlines company. Regal Entertainment is one entity with multiple locations across the United States. Both articles cover the entities; it is that there are no individual articles for all of Regal's locations.
- Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies) says: "Many companies have chains of local stores or franchises that are individually pretty much interchangeable—for instance, your local McDonald's. Since there is generally very little to say about individual stores or franchises that isn't true for the chain in general, we should not have articles on such individual stores." - But Cine TAM is about the theater company itself and its single (one) theater together. If this becomes a chain or if it was a chain "Cine TAM" would be about the firm in general. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment: As a reminder the notability of companies page says: "A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. The source's audience must also be considered; evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability, whereas attention solely by local media is not an indication of notability. Once notability is established, primary sources may be used to add content." - I have found Brazilian newspaper sources covering Cine TAM, so this is why I say that it is notable. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:17, 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) 03:47, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep Company is notable Special K(KoЯn flakes) 08:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

But is this particular cinema? TallNapoleon (talk) 09:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

The cinema company operates one cinema; the cinema company is notable, and this article is about both the cinema company and its sole cinema. If the company operated multiple cinemas the article would state what is common in those cinemas. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep. I live in São Paulo, Brazil, and this teather is notable in my city. This article also include reliable third party sources. I don't see any problems. Zero Kitsune (talk) 22:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete I believe most shopping malls in Brazil have a movie theater from different companies like Cinemark, United Cinemas International or any other. This theatre has nothing special, there are thousands of movie theatres like those in São Paulo. Also, there's no article on pt-wiki. If it was a company with theatres in several malls I believe it would be notable as a company. But it is limited to only one mall. Maybe merge to TAM Airlines. Tosqueira (talk) 23:06, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Tosqeira, do the other theaters that are not a part of Cinemark, UCI, etc. have articles in third party sources written about them? That is the criterion of the notability guideline I speak of above. WhisperToMe (talk) 09:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
  - Comment: a movie theater opening is often big news, locally, so yes, there probably WOULD be third party coverage of them. That doesn't mean that every local theater belongs on Wikipedia. TallNapoleon (talk) 05:19, 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 CSD G3 - Obvious hoax. --Angelo (talk) 10:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Granit Ahmetaj

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

I cannot find any pages online verifying the existence of this player. He is not listed on any Barcelona squad list that I've found (also see this empty google search for the official site and this similarly empty google search for soccerbase. Infact, a google search for his name brings up limited-to-no football related articles at all, and the google news search yields 0 results. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 12:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete as a hoax - ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Speedy Delete as a hoax. National-football-teams.com draws a similar blank. Also, the claim regarding the £65m buyout clause from his Barca contract seems highly dubious for a player no-one's ever heard of! Bettia (rawr CRUSH!) 11:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete as hoax. Giant Snowman 15:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete as above.--ClubOranje^Talk 10:06, 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) 09:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Martin Cassini

The subject of this article is a living person and he does not appear to meet notability standards. Also, if you look here, you will see that the article has been originally written (and by checking the history see that it has been substantially edited) by User:Seeplain. In the linked posting, Seeplain admits that he is writing about himself. He "thought it would be appropriate...to have (his) own Wiki entry." Deletion per WP:Notability and WP:Coatrack. ¢Spender1983 (talk) 03:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep - I can see how WP:Coatrack applies to this article. It is also true that this is largely an autobiography. However, WP:AUTO and WP:COATRACK are not necessarily reasons for outright deletion. So the question is notability, as usual. Cassini appears to have published articles himself in pretty respectable outlets and has also been discussed in third person, which is enough notability for me. The relevant references already appear in the article. Of course it should be improved by people who know something about the modern trends in road safety and that's why i added an "expert attention needed" tag to it, which was unfortunately removed. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 07:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- This is where we differ and why I have nominated for deletion. First, being an author does not automatically confer notability, no matter the outlet. Second, in my review of the references given I do not consider that the mention him in the "third person" in the manner that has been done is enough to establish notability. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 23:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep as notable and sourceable biography. The first few paragraphs need a vigorous planing for appropriate tone, but that's all it needs. --Lockley (talk) 16:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep - The rationale for the entry is that in the Wiki entry on Shared Space, Cassini is listed as one of five proponents. The other four have separate entries, so it seemed to make sense for there to be a separate entry for Cassini too, especially in view of his publications. This is an additional Guardian piece by him: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/21/congestioncharging.london Seeplain (talk) 19:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- Question - Seeplain, in the nomination above, I give information that I used to conclude that you are Martin Cassini. Since WP:AFD#How to discuss an Article for Deletion requests that people participating in the deletion discussion please disclose if you have a vested interest in the article, I will ask. Are you Martin Cassini? - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 21:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- Response 1 - Is he a "proponent" of shared space of the same notability as the others listed in that article? I thought not. Two months ago, I researched that and could not find evidence of it. I tagged the entry of Martin Cassini in the list as needing a citation. This is beacuse all of the others on that list are on the official website for Shared Space. Martin Cassini is not. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 21:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- Response 2 - WP:Bio does not provide that inclusion in a list in an article in WP confers notability on the person. In fact it says "notability criteria also must be met for a person to be included in a list or general article; in this case, however, the criteria are less stringent". So only the opposite is true. If the biography of Martin Cassini is considered here to be notable enough for a WP article, then he would be notable enough to include in other articles. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 21:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- Response 3 - Being an author of articles on a subject does not confer notability. Per WP:BIO, there must be articles and sources which tell us about Martin Cassini in order for him to be considered notable. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 21:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: The material involves a robust critique of standard traffic engineering practice, with humanitarian proposals for change, so a review by a traffic engineer is arguably irrelevant.Seeplain (talk) 19:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - Please read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Clearly, a robust critique is not appropriate material for an article. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 21:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —¢Spender1983 (talk) 23:01, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- Response 4 - I thought it was self-evident that seeplain is Martin Cassini - made clear at the outset when I was seeking an Adopter. As stated, the motivation was that I saw myself listed as a shared space proponent. I asked an Adopter, Amire80, if a separate entry was warranted, and he thought it was. Then PennySpender came along, who disagrees. Obviously I will abide by whatever is decided. I have no vested interest as such, but I think I have developed new ground in this wide-ranging subject which is being absorbed into mainstream thinking and policy. Other 3rd party references perhaps worth mentioning: I have been quoted as a "traffic expert" by the Daily Express. The Observer Comment editor asked me for a piece which was published. The Evening Standard often contacts me for quotes, as do numerous radio stations. I am quoted and discussed in the forthcoming book, In Search of Elegance, by Matt May, and cited by Tom Vanderbilt as a “fellow traveller”. 91.125.217.6 (talk) 11:56, 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) 09:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Jinx.com

AfDs for this article:

Non Notable, no sources - -The Spooky One (talk to me) 03:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Tagged for speedy deletion as blatant advertising. Alexius08 (talk) 04:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep I've declined the speedy deletion as the article is not blatant spam. The references found in the previous AfD establish this website's notability. I've also found a couple more: San Diego Business Journal, Market Wire, and Philadelphia citypaper.net. Cunard (talk) 06:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete None of the above sources are significant enough to establish notability. A google news search is not in itself a proof of notability, it fact only one of the result is relevent (a press release and not independent), which suggests a lack of notability. The third makes no mention whatsoever of the webiste jinx.com, it is about an completely unrelated store and site (Jinxed Clothing not Jinx) Article lacks any sources. i'm not sure about advertising but appears to a small web store of no note. --neon white talk 12:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete per WP:WEB. I agree it isn't blatant spam, but it's definitely not notable, either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NOT#WEBHOST and WP:WEB — Also agree with being rather spamless, but that's the least of its worries. It reads like a website page, and it doesn't indicate any notability whatsoever. MuZemike (talk) 16:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete WP:N concerns and WP:RS. Mvjs Talking 06:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 10:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete since no one has seen fit to add what little sourcing exists to this article in the process of this AfD, it looks unlikely to attract enough attention to be worth retaining. Jclemens (talk) 15:57, 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. Cirt (talk) 12:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

List of NPN Partners

A list of partners of a red linked company Schuym1 (talk) 21:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Move to National Performance Network and expand into a full article, if this organization is notable. Otherwise, delete. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 00:25, 7 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) 03:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Company doesn't seem to warrant an article. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 03:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete Generally, a list-of-partners article would be unacceptable even for something obviously notable (note no List of Microsoft partners or List of Google partners for example), and even moreso when the partnering organisation doesn't warrant an article. Nearly all the entries being redlinks further underscores non-notability. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete Per Starblind. MvjsTalking 08:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete per WP:LC items 2-5, 8, and 11. Stifle (talk) 15:51, 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) 09:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Scarlet Fade

Not notable; author's discussion on talk page amounts to same AndrewHowse (talk) 02:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Very weak keep Despite my personal point of view of Christian bands, I was torn on this one. I think notability can be said to be borderline, when reviewing the contest won and some mentions of that fact in multiple sources. I tend to support weak keep, but I think it needs to be cleansed of all the fan-speak and suchlike mentions. Imho it would benefit us more to keep it for now, but I admit that my arguments not much stronger than the creator's. So Why 08:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete. I'm not seeing how the band meets any of the 12 basic criteria for WP:MUSIC. I don't see the Ellio's Pizza Rock Star Challenge Online as a "major music competition." None of the sources provided move beyond "trivial coverage" IMO. The author states on the talk page that his main source of info about the band is "the band". Perhaps in a couple years we could try again. - IceCreamAntisocial (talk) 17:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
the article is notable. Im the creator, and let me just say, i believe the article, unfortunatley, doesn't fully meet all of the 12 basic criteria. HOWEVER, I personally feel that the Ellio's Pizza Rock Star Challenge is a pretty major music competition. Not only did over 53,000 people vote (well, more because that was only the amount of people who voted for Scarlet Fade), but you have to consider the following: the contest in question was for indie bands. You have to understand that indie bands are a much smaller piece of the music world than signed artists. So, when it comes to it, the 53,000+ people are a small percentage in the category of "music", but a larger percentage of the category of "indie music". To be honest, I knew about the contest back in 2006, when it first started. In fact, my whole town (and all the bands in it, and all the bands in towns around us) knew about it. No offense, but maybe it wasn't notable to you guys. However, to a lot of people, it was. I would also like to add that, while the article doesn't fully meet any of the other criterias for notability, it does partially meet several. For example, one piece of criteria is that the band, "Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network." While the band hasn't been included nationally as far as I know, they have been included on local stations and statewide stations (i think one was 96.5 TIC - http://www.965tic.com). Another piece of criteria that the band partially meets is that they, "Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable)." The band has released 1 single and 1 album, so they obviously havent released 2 albums yet, but if you consider a single an album, then we're good. NOT TO MENTION that the band fully fits the criteria that they, "[Have] become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability." The band, which originated in Bristol, CT, is well known in their town, and even in other towns in Connecticut (such as mine). The band is so well known that my friend's old-er relatives (perhaps great aunt or grandmother; i dont know exactly) who lives in Bristol has heard of them. I know they are somewhat well known, and i wish that you would respect that. The band has been an influence for other bands, and i want a source for people to go to when they want to find information about the band (not to advertise, obviously; i was sure to not do that).

--[Email address removed] 00:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment I don't pay attention to music much, but to reply to "the article is notable" — Have the song and the CD been issued on any of these major labels? If not, it fails that criterion, regardless of whether the separate song is considered a separate album. Just like politicians — although national and regional significance can make the music group and the elected official notable, simply local significance (whether being played on local stations or holding local elected office) doesn't make the subject notable. Finally, as to the city: I would guess that this refers to really large cities, probably larger than Bristol; if it meant ANY city, then a four-person band from Ruso, North Dakota would obviously be the most prominent representative of that city's cultural scene, but that wouldn't mean much. Ultimately, to be notable under the WP:MUSIC criteria to which you refer, it must fully pass one or more of the notability criteria; passing them partially isn't enough. Nyttend (talk) 04:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete - fails WP:BAND; a non-notable band on a non-notable label. B.Wind (talk) 03:14, 16 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) 09:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Mindanao tech

Doesn't seem to be notable, no google results, not much given in article Omarcheeseboro (talk) 02:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete - fails notability--otherlleft (talk) 04:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
I think this article should not be deleted because this article just want to convey that university students can share freely their thoughts about what's going on around them, that would affect their roles. Dcknicks22 (talk) 03:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete - nothing here to show why this student newsletter is notable. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —bluemask ^(talk) 12:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete. I try not to bite at how badly written the article is (with a talk message in the main wiki even), but I agree with the others here that the subject lacks notability. Starczamora (talk) 20:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete. No, this isn't a student newspaper to the level of the Philippine Collegian or (for fellow WP editors in the US) the Harvard Crimson. Doesn't meet notability...yet. --- Tito Pao (talk) 08:40, 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. Cirt (talk) 12:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Chris Pendergast

This is an unsourced (apart from the subject's personal website) biography of a living person and I do not think that any sources will be found. His claimed sporting achievements are not at a professional level and I do not know of any reliable sources which cover the players in such events with the detail required to write a neutral, verifiable, encyclopaedia article about an individual player. If sources do exist then they will likely take time to find, an unsourced BLP should not be on Wikipedia for any length of time and an article cannot be based only on selfpublished sources. Guest9999 (talk) 02:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

?Delete maybe? According to the wikipedia article on Gaelic football, "It has strict rules on player amateurism" so that sounds like there will never be "professional" teams anyway. Not sure how to handle that, as it doesn't fit into normal rules, it would seem. You may have to delete simply because the rules of the game almost insure no player is notable, in a way. Perhaps a newspaper will have written about him, but notability can't be automatic. PHARMBOY (TALK) 02:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
strong delete not notable. [16] Reads like an autobiography. Sticky Parkin 19:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete. While searching UK Google news is unlikely to bring up a lot of detail about a gaelic footballer, the standard is playing at the highest amateur level, which he does not do. Stifle (talk) 09:05, 16 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) 09:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Vonn

Dismally fails WP:MUSIC and WP:RS. The site Doom-metal.com that is mentioned in the opening paragraph is strictly a fanboy endeavour -- copious levels of genuine media coverage are acutely lacking. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete We can't find their CDs and we don't know who's in the band? // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 02:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete per WP:MUSIC, band has one self-released album to their name. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 12:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete per WP:MUSIC, one self-released album (although they did self-release it twice). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't know if I am doing this right because this was my first page for wikipedia.

The reason I added the band Vonn as my first page - and why I felt they were noteworthy in wikipedia - is that I felt they truly summed up the essence of what extreme doom metal is, with its obscurity, extremity, and the fact that the band refuse to do interviews, be properly identified or conduct interviews. I am a journalist and we tried to get an interview with the band by going through one of the larger bands that the members are in, but they refused. Also the fact that reviews of the album all cite the music as the most extreme music the reviewers have heard, one of the reasons we wanted to interview them. I therefore thought a wikipedia page would be appropriate. Anyway, if it's not deemed worthy of inclusion, so be it. No big deal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SabenaSB (talk • contribs) 18:46, 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. MBisanz ^talk 19:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

StrategyWiki

AfDs for this article:

No assertion of notability for websites - links and sources are to StrategyWiki alone, bar the two links to talk pages (talk pages!) on other wikiprojects that do not mention StrategyWiki at all (and would not be reliable sources anyway). This appears to be the second nomination (first is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/StrategyWiki and based on the old deletion discussion points, it either hasn't changed, or wasn't deleted after the discussion closed). This could be a speedy since it's already been discussed in essentially the same format (and this time, salt the earth!). WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 01:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 01:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 01:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete It was deleted properly, according to the log and recreated March 31, 2008, according to the history, so it appears it was created in good faith. Speedy doesn't apply. It has several references, but they all appear to fail wp:rs. Probably a nice site and all, just isn't notable yet. PHARMBOY (TALK) 01:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Weak delete — The only reliable source I can find is this Joystiq article here. I'm afraid that's not enough significant coverage in reliable sources to satisfy the WP:GNG. It's a shame considering I have also contributed over there from time to time. MuZemike (talk) 03:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Please note that reliability of Joystiq's hosted info should be judged based on its authors, not on the site (WP:VG/S). Jappalang (talk) 11:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Comment: I've seen Kotaku is considered a reliable source/news site as well. There have been published advertisements for the site. Also has a decent alexa ranking. I can't vote as it's a conflict of interest, but I'd say 'weak keep'. -- Prod (Talk) 03:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Please note that reliability of Kotaku's hosted info should be judged based on its authors, not on the site (WP:VG/S). Jappalang (talk) 11:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete. No reliable sources that could give a comprehensive coverage of the subject: subject is not notable per WP:GNG. Jappalang (talk) 11:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete 0 Gnews hits. Web hits (looked through the first 10 pages or so) are not promising at all. The best it gets is a blurb on joystiq, which is not generally a RS. Protonk (talk) 16:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Comment: I don't understand the point of this debate. This entry was submitted and it was rejected once. Issues brought up in the first discussion were considered and the entry was resubmitted, and it appeared that the issues were sufficiently addressed. Now it seems that we're debating the issue again under even more stringent guidelines. I understand that no site gets preferential treatment, but SW is certainly a partner wiki in good faith, and interlinking occurs between both sites substantially. Plotor (talk) 17:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plotor (talk • contribs)

The point is not that interwiki links shouldn't exist. The point is whether or not we should have an article on strategywiki. And we can't if strategywiki isn't covered in the press (basically). Protonk (talk) 19:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Hate to delete but it fails the policies/guidelines: Found a paper which cites it using scholars.google:[17], but it's only really a citation that it exists in the same manner as Wikipedia (as a wiki). --Izno (talk) 23:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete - I'm actually a little surprised that reliable third-party sources didn't turn up. But that a several different google searches revealed nothing about such an Internet-driven and recent topic should confirm that this just isn't notable yet. No prejudice towards re-creation once StrategyWiki becomes notable, and there is reliable third-party coverage to support this article. Randomran (talk) 17:22, 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. per IAR, snow on the main AfD and common sense. Albums/singles from a non-notable and speedied artists aren't going to be notable either. Just because we can't A7 doesn't mean they need to run five days. TravellingCari 03:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Its Pouring Rain

Uncited, unnotable, crystalballing. There are many other AFDs regarding this "artist", someone spamming it here. PHARMBOY (TALK) 01:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keep Going Back and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/...The Fame cover the same "artist" (Ghetto Boi), which was speedy deleted. PHARMBOY (TALK) 01:06, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

... and also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Endless Fourtune. WWGB (talk) 01:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete. Yet more unreleased, non-notable material from this WP spammer. WWGB (talk) 01:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 01:13, 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#G3. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 03:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Core i8

Complete garbage. The speedy delete prod was contested, but not improved in any way. Factually inaccurate, outright lies, jokes, etc. Speedy delete, please! Matt Deres (talk) 00:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Delete G3 - blatant vandalism, borderline attack page, has been tagged. Guest9999 (talk) 02:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Speedy Delete, there is no such thing, (yet?). Hoax, that qualifies for pure vandalism. RockManQ ^(talk) 02:35, 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) 09:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

A Girl Called Kate

The article has an impressive list of artists the band has performed with so I am no going to go with {{db-band}} on this one but in all other aspects this band appears unnotable.

It gets three mentions in news sources (as determined by GoogleNews; [18]) but none of the mentions exceed one sentence and contain essentially no information about the band and the bands only release so far, an EP titled "This Is All She Gave Us", appears to be a minor release ([19]) to say the least. Icewedge (talk) 00:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete not notable. --Walmwutter (talk) 09:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete questionable notability and poorly written articles. --Da Vynci (talk) 19:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete - there seem to be some assertion of notability, but without sourcing for verification, this will be An Article Called Deleted. B.Wind (talk) 03:22, 16 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 as blatant advertising. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:29, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

HIORAC8

Not notable. There is no mention of this product that is not in a press release, a UV Exposures web site, a blog, or a web page trying to sell something. Wronkiew (talk) 00:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

HI-ORAC-8 is a clinically tested and approved compound and a recent advancement in organic chemistry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.229.141.157 (talk) 01:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Then prove it with reliable sources otherwise, Delete. X MarX the Spot (talk) 03:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete - no reliable sources, only 172 Google results, many directly related to UV Exposures or a mirror of Wikipedia, and mostly just marketing from the company who develops it (UV Exposures, who also isn't notable.) Soliloquial (talk) 04:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I tried to reference all the data related to the compound in the page. I'm not trying to advertise here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MNICOLO (talk • contribs) 17:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete as a hoax. Arguably, speedy delete as vandalism. The article is obvious nonsense. It is impossible for a single organic compound to contain green tea, pomegranates, cocoa, carrots, coffee, and vitamins A D and E. The claims are straight-out lies and rubbish. AlexTiefling (talk) 18:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:15, 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. MBisanz ^talk 19:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Oleg Gurtovoy

A second rate electronic music composer and leader of a band that according to its website has not released an album yet. Fails WP:MUSIC. Blacklake (talk) 20:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Being second rate is not a reason for deletion (or half of Wikpedia has to go!). However, lack of notabilty is. Delete Emeraude (talk) 11:44, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete there do not appear to be any reliable sources which could be used to create a verifiable, encyclopaedia article about the subject. Guest9999 (talk) 02:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete fails WP:MUSIC and WP:RS. X MarX the Spot (talk) 03:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete It is not nice to call someone "second rate" -- but problems with WP:RS and WP:BIO cannot be ignored. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:33, 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) 09:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Dora (singer)

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. In 1986 she was 14th with Não sejas mau para mim and two years later she was 18th with Voltarei. Schuym1 (talk) 20:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete per nom due to the issue of reliable sourcing. I will check back on this debate periodically to see if anyone can locate documents to demonstrate the notability of the subject. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 17:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep - She has represented Portugal twice as noted in the article, and confirmed from the Eurovision particpation history for Portugal. Dora, as a name makes it hard (nearly impossible) to search via google, and I suspect that most sourcing would be inPortuguese which I cannot read. -- Whpq (talk) 21:07, 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) 00:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep. Twice represented her country at the Eurovision Song Contest and not notable? Let's use a bit of WP:COMMONSENSE here. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Seems the page has had the same two sentence description since April 2006. A look at Eurovision Song Contest 1986 shows a list of the top 20 and lists Dora as number 20, not 14 (Confirmed by the official website as well) and for 1988 she was again 20, not 18([http://www.eurovision.tv/index/main?page=66&event=304 official). Either way Dora would still be included on that page, there is no need to keep a two line article.

Comment. That's untrue. Those references confirm that she was placed 14th and 18th - 20 is simply the draw number. It's the column on the right that you need to look at, not the one on the left. But anyway she's notable for representing a country in the contest, not for the position she gained. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment: My bad. I see that. But I still stick to delete as a two line article is weak. Soundvisions1 (talk) 20:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment. And since when has being a two line article been a reason for turning it into a zero line article? This needs expansion, not deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment:I am all for any article being expanded upon however the topic here is not expansion it is "should it be deleted." I said "Seems the page has had the same two sentence description since April 2006" and I make my choice on that. Soundvisions1 (talk) 21:14, 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. Cirt (talk) 12:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

TinyAlbum

Notability issues: Google returns only 910 documents Photoact (talk) 17:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Notability: Google only returned 910 if you use the "www". If you search for "tinyalbum.com" you will find 8720. Search for "www.google.com" and you'll get 29M, search for "google.com" and you'll get 162M. Mike Hoyles 23:05 MST, 6 October 2008 —Preceding undated comment was added at 05:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC).

This has nothing to do with including the "www" or not. In the search Google the pages from the site itself are excluded: this is done to measure the number of sites linking to tinyalbum.com.Photoact (talk) 10:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Gotcha, (still learning) - Thanks. Mikehoyles 10:00 MST, 7 October 2008 —Preceding undated comment was added at 15:59, 7 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, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete, seems to fail WP:WEB. Stifle (talk) 09:06, 16 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) 12:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

List of 18th century Brussels Freemasons

Listcruft / indiscriminate collection of information. Exists here on the French Wikipedia and I question whether it actually needs translation. At best reduce to list of those who have articles here. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 17:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete, the names which link to articles can probably be included in List of Freemasons (if they're not already), the inclusion criteria for an entry in a list of people is generally that the person meets the criteria for having their own article, currently even in the very extensive French list that would reduce the list to only a few names. If the main article gets too long and cumbersome, I'm sure it will be split apart until then it seems unnecessary to have separate articles for each century/country (unless the members of a certain area at a certain time are especially (collectively) noteworthy for some particular reason - this article gives no evidence that this is the case for 18th century Brussels). Guest9999 (talk) 00:26, 7 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, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete As per the nom's cogent comments. Ecoleetage (talk) 03:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete, no mention of anyone being interested in this subject other than the author. WillOakland (talk) 03:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Rewrite and cleanup WP:DEADLINE. --Walmwutter (talk) 09:29, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to its most likely place, History of Freemasonry in Belgium. This one is interesting -- it looks like somebody's individual project, recently done, with a few links but untranslated from French, and there's even an illustration in the most complete form (which I've restored for discussion's sake). It might make sense to edit this down to only include linked people. Or, a quicker way, simply redirect, and encourage the editor to continue his project there, if he's still interested. --Lockley (talk) 16:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete per WP:LC items 2, 3, 4, and 10. Stifle (talk) 09:07, 16 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) 09:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

From The Ground Up (Dizzy album)

Non-notable, download only album, fails WP:MUSIC. Mdsummermsw (talk) 14:56, 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) 00:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Comment - This article seems to be closly related to On The Inside Looking Out, also a download only album from the same artist. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 13:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete Fails WP:MUSIC#Albums. Claimed "hit" song did not chart w/Billboard. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 19:41, 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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Los Narcos de S.L.P

Non-notable band, fails WP:MUSIC. Mdsummermsw (talk) 14:31, 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) 00:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:22, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:25, 16 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.

Google Watch

The result was keep. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 El Avion De Las Tres. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 10:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Este Corazon Llora

Fails WP:MUSIC#SONGS. Mdsummermsw (talk) 14:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete. No sources of notability or awards. Zero Kitsune (talk) 00:34, 7 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) 00:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 10:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Redirect to El Avion De Las Tres - no evidence of charting or other indication of notability outside of the album itself. B.Wind (talk) 03:32, 16 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) 09:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

David Aylott (make-up artist)

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

Procedural. Been tagged for notability questions since June 2007, and in its current state isn't notable. However, he's done a lot of make-up work, and you'd think as a result there'd be sources out there. No opinion on the matter yet. Wizardman 04:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete - without prejudice for recreation upon notable publishing. I currently can't find anything independent aside from imdb list to assert WP:BIO. Chaldor (talk) 05:09, 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) 00:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 10:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete. I don't understand why it was relisted. I think it's obvious that this article fails notability. --Magioladitis (talk) 12:02, 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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:23, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Rostislaw Wygranienko

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

Notability not established through reliable sources. Wizardman 04:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 7 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) 00:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 10:59, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete Has been tagged as unreferenced for over a year, so notability cannot be established. Unless there are some sources that show why the article is notable, it should be deleted.--Terrillja (talk) 01:44, 16 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 19:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Pomona New Community

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

Run-of-the-mill local program, fails WP:Notability. Largo Plazo (talk) 03:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete -Abhishek ^Talk 04:13, 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) 00:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Horselover Frost (talk) 10:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Doesn't meet standards for inclusion, no secondary sources available. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:08, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Merge with Pomona, California. JASpencer (talk) 15:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- There is currently no context (e.g., a list of community service organizations) in that article in which it would make sense to include a mention of this organization.—Largo Plazo (talk) 15:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete. No point in merging -- just 10 non-wiki ghits, none of which are showing notability, zero gnews hits. There are probably a dozen after-school programs just like it in Pomona.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete. No wiki-notability established - or even asserted! Springnuts (talk) 17:05, 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. Merge discussions, if desired, can continue on the article's talk page. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Skyline Mall

Utterly unremarkable office building mall. Is any of it still in operation, other than the Target they were putting in last I heard? —Largo Plazo (talk) 00:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

~~Weak neutral~~. I did find this substantial source which documents the replacement of the whole mall with a Target store (there's your answer), but otherwise I'm finding nearly bupkis. If the towers had a page I'd suggest a merge to their page, but I don't know if said towers are notable enough. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 00:40, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 00:40, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Weakest of keeps I was hoping there was a policy to offer some guidance, you know, like a WP:MALL. Of course there is, and it was abandoned because they couldn't reach a concensus. I see over 2500 ghits for it, which doesn't mean much by itself. I lean to keep only because there isn't a real policy to guide me on why it should be deleted, and it is pretty hard to apply general notability here. My guess is that since it is 31 years old, something interesting can probably be dug up about it. I did find one article from [20] that tells the whole story pretty well, better than the article. PHARMBOY (TALK) 01:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:10, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Changing to weak keep. I've done a slight WP:HEY job on the article, mainly with the one source that I found. There are a couple less significant hits on Google News, so I say it's salvageable, if not by much. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 00:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Merge/Redirect to Falls Church, Virginia. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:35, 16 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) 09:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Kentucky Towers Apartments

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

21st tallest building in a mid-size city... no NRHP, no local landmark listing, does not seem to have any genuine claim to importance. The only coverage outside of a business paper, which routinely reports on business plans to buy or expand properties, is just coverage about a death that happened to occur on top of part of the building. I really don't think this constitutes non-trivial coverage of the building. Rividian (talk) 01:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete - Article has been in existence for a long time without establishment of WP:N. Chaldor (talk) 02:23, 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) 00:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete Notability is conspicuously lacking. Ecoleetage (talk) 03:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete without any claim to notability, no notable architect listed, and no NRHP listing as mentioned above. --Lockley (talk) 22:39, 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 redirect to À fleur de toi. Stifle (talk) 09:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Pourquoi les hommes ?

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

Non notable song, never charted, only available digitally. Fails WP:NM. Europe22 (talk) 00:21, 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) 00:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete Nom nailed it, and even the article says the song did poorly and was digital only. PHARMBOY (TALK) 01:47, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Redirect to À fleur de toi, album containing the recording. B.Wind (talk) 03:37, 16 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) 09:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Tara Chand (musician)

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

Non-notable musician, fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC Ecoleetage (talk) 00:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete, per nom. Does not have significant coverage by independent reliable sources, no evidence of passing WP:MUSIC or WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 01:16, 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) 00:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:11, 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. MBisanz ^talk 19:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Clutter (organizing)

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

WP:DICTDEF with semi-promotional web links. VG ☎ 22:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:40, 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) 00:08, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete unless someone can tell me how this could ever be more than a dictionary definition. PHARMBOY (TALK) 01:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete - Even if this were to be completely modified to move it away from a mere definition, I think it would move to being an essay, which would be deleted as well. Soliloquial (talk) 03:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete, nothing substantive to save. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 03:59, 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 Merge and redirect . The content appears to have been merged previously to Diefenbaker Management Area so that will be the redirect target. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 10:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

We Are Many

This article is about an event that is not notable, as described in Wikipedia:Notability (news events)#Local events. There is no indication that this event will return in the future. Drm310 (talk) 04:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Yup you're right... the article states in a quotation even...pilot project model for mid sized cities. It would be nice if the festival returned and gained impetus as it had a good aim. It may be a better idea to delete the stub after the non returned future event instead of using a crystal ball to delete the festival ahead of the article, but C'est la vie . Using the local event notability will work for a few more months, but can a deleted wikipedia article be resurrected from the ashes to commemorate the ensuing festivals in other cities, therefore not local, which are planned, and which have Hunt Alternatives Fund $40,000 matching grant for the 2008, as well as many other sponsors, and have been fund raising in several cities after the Saskatoon festival to promote 2009 festivals. It may or may not be premature to delete the articles, the WAM promoters seem to think they will be sustained. It would be nice to have a crystal ball.SriMesh | talk 05:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete - non-notable festival. This is just like many other festivals worldwide that are not notable enough for their own article. Our local one has been running for several years and only gets a passing mention in the article on the suburb, which is just fine. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Merge to Saskatoon#Events and festivals. Content makes sense there and a redirect to it may be useful to readers. DoubleBlue (Talk) 20:40, 11 October 2008 (UTC) P.S. It'd be nice to add the content to Diefenbaker Management Area, which is sorely lacking info as well. DoubleBlue (Talk) 20:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Very borderline notability at present; I think the single secondary source used would support a merge as proposed above, but there's not enough there to sustain an independent article. If the festival takes off and becomes the subject of multiple, non-trivial coverage, then an article could be created in the future. EyeSerene^talk 20:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

The content has been added to Diefenbaker Management Area, good idea. SriMesh | talk 05:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Merge and re-direct: For now it can be merged and the page re-directed. But if it is continues each year, it can be broken off into an article of its own. Mr. C.C. (talk) 18:05, 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) 09:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Raymond Hoser

Only references are attacks on his work by a single, rival academic. No clear assertion of notability which would qualify him as notable under the individual fields of author-notability or television presenter-notability. Inherent WP:BLP issues, subject request via OTRS, and marginal notability. Daniel (talk) 07:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

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

Delete nominator said it all. He doesn't want this, and it is too marginal for us to need it.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 09:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep The references are peer reviews to his work, with (not one, but) eleven, Australian and international workers in the field putting their names to the scientific discussion papers. They challenge the validity of Hoser's scientific descriptions and contain nothing that could be construed as a personal attack. This is in stark contrast to the man himself who publishes such material on his web sites. The references do not state that he stinks, for example, but I detect a stench when I am harried by an editor who finally looks at what he has done, says he now has no objections, then toddles off here to vote nay. cygnis insignis 11:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —cygnis insignis 13:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Tim Vickers (talk) 20:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
~~Delete~~ Amateurs sometimes make valuable contributions to taxonomy of groups of interest to them (reptiles, orchids, aquarium fish, etc). This does not seem to be the case for Hoser. The three references cited are not "attack essays" as stated on the article's talk page (and not from a single academic, as stated in the nom, there are several different co-authors on each of the three papers), but articles correcting errors brought into the taxonomic literature by a presumably well-meaning amateur. If "attacks", they attack his work, not the person and therefore don't seem to poase a BLP issue to me. In any case, it doesn't seem likely that his taxonomic work will have much more impact than the citations he got in these three papers, which would not be enough to satisfy any of the criteria of WP:PROF. His other activities (website and such) don't seem to be notable enough to satisfy WP:BIO. Just an aside, the fact that the subject of the article doesn't want an article is basically irrelevant to this discussion. A lack of notability is the only valid reason for deletion, IMHO. --Crusio (talk) 11:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Certainly not notable as an academic, under WP:ACADEMIC. Very little evidence of any citability (not to mention high citability, which is what is generally required for satisfying criterion 1 of WP:ACADEMIC) of his scholarly work by other scientists. Very low citation results in GoogleScholar[21] and similarly low in WebOfScience. Also, very little in googlebooks[22]. Nsk92 (talk) 11:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Change to Weak Delete. Although the subject is not notable academically, there may be a passable WP:BIO case (in relation to his political activism) based on the GoogleNews results[23]. However, such a case does not seem to be strong, the subject requests deletion and there are apparent BLP concerns here. In view of this I still think that deletion is warranted. Nsk92 (talk) 18:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete this WP:COATRACK. Guy 12:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Guy, don't you think it is ironic that, in your eagerness to defend "living people", you never seem to hesitate in besmirching the motives and integrity of your fellow Wikipedians? Whoever wrote this article is a living person too, you know, and you have not a scrap of evidence to back up your COATRACK claim against them. Congratulations, you've just made an unverifiable personal attack on a living person. Hesperian 13:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
  - Oh, for goodness sake get a sense of proportion. A negative assessment of an anonymous person on a non-indexed debate page is NOT in the least equivalent to Wikipedia publishing highly prominent accessible information on living people who have no choice in its inclusion. And if any wikipedian doesn't like the treatment they can walk away, article subjects cannot.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 13:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
    - I wasn't talking to you, Scott. Hesperian 13:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
      - Well, I was talking to you. If you want to have a private conversation with Guy, try e-mail. This is a multi-party discussion page.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 14:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
        The closing admin will likely ignore such ad hominem attacks Hesperian. Can you keep the discussion on-topic please? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Hesperian, this is the kind of thing I'm talking about: [24]. If Doomguy1001 was his real name then you might have a point, but it isn't. Guy 17:08, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- If I understand your response correctly, you're not claiming that the creator of, or main contributors to, this article were biased, but rather than one or more bad faith editors have subsequently injected bias into the article. Apparently you think that any article that has received an injection of bias is thereby a coatrack that should be deleted. Sarah Palin? George W. Bush? Abortion? Hesperian 05:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

No, I think that the main reason anyone wants an article on this man appears to be in order to discuss the dispute in which he is engaged. This is a view I formed while researching the possibility of a better sourced and more neutral article: most sources on the internet appear to be polemical in nature. Thise which are not appear to track back to him. We received an OTRS complaint regarding the dispute between him and another individual; the only coverage of said dispute was primary sources connected with the two. I don't see this as a genuine article documenting a notable individual, but an article designed to either highlight or downplay, depending on partisan allegiance, his controversial side. Since the controversy appears to be restricted to a rather small group of individuals, I don't think it's an appropriate subject for an article. Guy 13:15, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete I've had more scientific impact than this guy, and I've only just finished my MS and published 2 papers. Mokele (talk) 12:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete - Wikipedia does not need pages on every person who some handful of people (about 3 per day in this case) might want to find information about. Wikipedia's 'notability' guidelines exist both to protect us from being flooded by pages about obscure individuals AND to protect individuals who are not already widely scrutinized from having their privacy violated by us. The latter seems to apply in this case. The listed sources all have extremely limited circulation. This person isn't regularly discussed in major newspapers. There is neither an existing 'public collection' of information about this person nor an existing demand for such information. It should not be Wikipedia's role to provide information which is not already widely available and sought after. --CBD 12:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete Take off, eh? Per WP:BIO and per reasonable request from non-notable subject. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep. Author of multiple published works. Author of numerous valid (albeit not accepted) taxonomic names. His contributions to herpetology nomenclature have had such an impact that they have been the subject of academic refutations published in reputable journals. So what if his contributions have been assessed as unhelpful rather than helpful: the same could be said of Otto Kuntze or Richard Salisbury. The impact remains. This man well and truly meets our notability policy. Hesperian 13:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- So, you your logic, I get my own page? After all, I discovered a new mode of snake locomotion (meaning I did real, actual research, as opposed to just inventing new names for things), and my discovery has been upheld in the literature. Or how about my friend Dan, who discovered the secondary re-evolution of galloping gaits in vampire bats? Or Manny, who discovered pennate muscle gearing? Or Tim, who discovered differential within-muscle activations? All of us have had our discoveries published in top-tier journals. My point is that all but the worst/laziest graduate student needs to have substantial novel contributions to science simply in order to graduate. We clearly cannot list all of them. Articles should be reserved for those who have made truly huge contributions, either in the form of a single incredible discovery or a lifetime of high-quality work. Shitting out some taxonomy papers - which were rejected - is not notable. Mokele (talk) 14:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
  - If you provide the references for that, I will be happy to write an article on you. Your discovery is notable! He is noted at WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles recommended taxonomic source (ITIS) as providing valid names. His name appears in multiple and reliable sources discussing Elapidae and other families of snakes. If Hoser is not notable, how did you come to hear of him or the article? Why did you contribute to it, prompting this talk page item from another user in this AfD 'discussion'? cygnis insignis 16:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
    - No, the point is that I'm NOT notable (at least not yet), and that many, many graduate students, post-docs, and professors have done a LOT of notable work, much more than Hoser. If we set the bar for inclusion in WP at this level, WP might as well simply import the entire faculty list of every university, plus most of the grad students, past and present. My familiarity with him comes from his role in the venomoid trade - to me, he's notable as an animal-abuser who mutilates snakes in unsanitary conditions with horrific mortality rates and no proper surgical procedure or post-operative care. Just about every reputable herpetologist or hobbyist won't go near him with a 20 foot pole as a result. Mokele (talk) 17:06, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
      - I agree that your body of work doesn't make you notable. But once a reputable journal publishes an assessment of the impact of your work, you're notable. That is true regardless of whether the assessment is "Mokele's ground-breaking contributions have laid a frameword for the field for the next fifty years." or "Mokele's contributions are a load of garbage that have set the field back fifty years." Hesperian 04:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
        Perhaps I should rephrase - performing notable, publishable research is basically the job description of any scientist, so the bar for notability needs to be set higher, as in the guidelines for academics. I don't think there's any debate that Hoser's work does not make the grade - it's a handful of taxonomic changes in obscure papers (many of which have been rejected). I've read some of his papers, and I'm definitely not impressed - I'd reject them if I was a peer-reviewer, mostly due to the highly dubious choices of distinguishing characters (such as pattern, scalation, and vertebral number, all of which are highly polymorphic within and between populations). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mokele (talk • contribs) 13:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I can't believe you are comparing Hoser to O. Kuntze, a man who produced an enormous body of work. And although much of that has been overturned, a lot of it still stands. Many of the taxa described by Kuntze are still in use today, more than 100 years later. --Crusio (talk) 14:57, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Point taken; it was not my intention to put Hoser on the same pedestal as Kuntze. Hesperian 04:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Strong Keep Raymond Hoser easily passes the general test of worthy of notice, with many reliable independent secondary sources (newspaper articles, radio and current affairs news transcripts, academic refutations in journals) available to attest to his worthiness for inclusion in Wikipedia. The article probably needs more detail on Hoser's work, his anti-corruption campaigning and various legal cases he has been embroiled in, some of which were newsworthy and very unusual such as the Victorian Supreme Court fining him $5000 for scandalising the court in 2001, a rarely prosecuted offence.[25]. As with most VfD articles, they often need improvement, and this one is no exception, including adding reliable secondary sources. Although the subject of the article may fail the academic notability test, I find it difficult to believe how any editor can seriously consider this article for deletion based on a general test of Notability. The person is very noteworthy, although not necessarily based on his scientific achievements. --Takver (talk) 15:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

This is not VfD. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

~~Delete~~ - the usual bar of notability is "multiple non-trivial reliable secondary sources about the subject." None of the people recommending that we keep the article have so far shown any kind of evidence that this kind of source exists for this subject. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC) Nutral - this guy seems to attract very minor press. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 21:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment - This is not true - Google News found 427 references to Raymond Hoser, many of which were non-trivial articles. I have just done a rewrite of the article, which changes the focus to Hoser as an anti-corruption whistleblower and campaigner. He has been significantly reported upon and discussed with regard to anti-corruption. I added 9 non-trivial reliable and independent secondary references to the article which substantiate the claim to general notability of the article.--Takver (talk) 18:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Good, I've added in a section with references about his persistence practice of animal cruelty. Mokele (talk) 18:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

~~Delete~~ - non-notable individual, and subject requested. We are reasonable people here; let's not fight about this. -- how do you turn this on 18:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC) Stricken per research done. -- how do you turn this on 21:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

*Weak delete just in the context of a scientist, his two descriptive biology books are not widely held outside of Australia. The 4 scientific papers mentioned are not in international journals. I have not look at other factors. 03:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC) re-evaluated--see below DGG (talk) 23:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep - he is very well known in herpetological circles, if not necessarily for his scientific achievements. Moreover, he has been embroiled in numerous acrimonious exchanges, and a Wikipedia page provides the opportunity for balanced coverage.-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caissaca (talk • contribs) 11:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep - I've actually got a few of his corruption books here on my shelf. Notable by my standards. -- Longhair\^talk 11:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep, balanced article and there is no need to be too concerned by his wish for it to be deleted as he is clearly a believer in freedom of speech on occasions.--Grahame (talk) 14:01, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Note to closing admin and "keep" voting editors Given the way AfD usually works, it boils down to a vote, even if it shouldn't. Given the number of "keep" votes given above (although none of them really give any solid reasons establishing notability), I therefore expect the closing admin to go for a "no consensus" solution, this being the easiest and safest. In that case, the article needs a thorough rewrite. Nobody really argues that the herpetological work of this person is notable. Whatever notability he has, it derives from his anti-corruption activities. The article needs to be rewritten to reflect this. For instance, it now starts with "is an Australian herpetologist". As it stands, the anti-corruption stuff is secondary, the herpetology primary. The latter should be more of a footnote. --Crusio (talk) 15:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep, meets WP:BIO, though not WP:PROF. I've added "findsouces" above to facilitate viewing GNews results. WP:COATRACK is easily trumped by notability: the point is then to get NPOV in the article. Crusio is correct in saying the article needs re-writing. Takver's edits help; I can see why this one was nominated given the state it was in yesterday, but I think it doesn't qualify for deletion now. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
~~Weak Keep~~ Keep -- see below for rationale. although not notable as an academic--works are of local interest only. The sources fo rthe rest is good enough, but the article remains sketchy.DGG (talk) 02:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
keep His work dealing with Australian corruption makes him notable enough as is. He could likely get an article simply for his herpetological work. It is not generally a good idea to delete an article on someone notable for two distinct issues would be deleted. Note also that claims of COATRACK are unpersuasive(and moreover irrelevant since the solution to such an issue would be to rewrite not to delete). Finally, the subject's work especially his political work makes him a willing public figure. It is unreasonable in the extreme to delete articles about willing public figures even if they want them deleted. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep, a notably bad amateur scientist who's work was singled out for detailed rebuttal in a review article by several prominent herpetologists, who also made unusually strong criticisms of his ethics (see article). More criticism of Hoser's work was published in PMID 16999982, which I will also add to this article. Most scientists, fortunately, do not warrant that much attention. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Note on "citations" in taxonomy and nomenclature From the above comments by several editors, I feel there is perhaps a need to explain a bit about work in scientific nomenclature. The traditions of taxonomy force people to cite. One cannot deal with a group without citing all synonyms and their "authorities" (I put that between parentheses, because this does not mean "authority" in the common sense, but in the taxonomic sense). If one sees things that way, those citations rebutting Hoser's work are less significant, not more. To give another example, in most fields of science, if someone manages to publish bad research (which unfortunately happens more often than one would like), nobody will cite it and that's the end of it. In taxonomy, given the nomenclature rules, if someone publishes a bunch of rubbish names, they still must be dealt with and they will be listed ad eternam in any article covering the taxonomy and nomenclature of that particular group. If this would confer notability, then all someone has to do to become notable is to publish a bunch of scientific names in a valid way (and that's pretty easy, since they don't need to be published in a peer-reviewed journal - a self-published little rag is sufficient) and wait until someone writes an article to put the record straight.... --Crusio (talk) 20:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

However, this guy seems to be a serial offender in that regard, which I agree doesn't make him a notable scientist, but the aggravation and disruption he has caused appears to have been considerable, and generated a lot of comment in reliable sources. Consequently, I think his taxonomic "work" makes him notable, because it is so very bad. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

There aren't many people becoming notable for their amateur taxonomy work whether well done or not. If at some point people start publishing bad taxonomy work in order to get Wikipedia articles we can worry about it then. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and who is going to want to become notable for being wrong? That would be the academic equivalent of becoming the star wars kid. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I don't care how many rules it violates, we *MUST* use that description in the section on Hoser's taxonomic work. It's just too funny not to use. Mokele (talk) 23:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course I am not seriously proposing that someone would do all this on purpose, just to get into WP. I was just trying to illustrate a point. I work in neuroscience. If I would publish some particularly bad science, then most other neuroscientists would ignore it, unless it attracted attention for some reason, say because I managed to make a lot of noise and get it into prominent journals. In that case, someone might write an article entitled "Why Crusio is wrong" and that might rightfully be taken as a sign of notability. I did bad science, but it was notable. Like most people here, as a neuroscientist I would take the articles showing Hoser's errors as a sign of notability. Bad science, but notable. However, when I was a student I worked in taxonomy (I even described a new species at some point :-), so I know a bit how things go there. Scientific nomenclature is guided by a set of stringent rules (actually sets of rules: there are different rules for plants, animals, microorganisms). These rules stipulate that if a name is validly published, it has to be taken into account, whether correct or not. Suppose I would describe a new contemporary species in the genus Homo, Homo ludens. All taxonomists studying Homo would fall over me: there is only one contemporary species of Homo, Homo sapiens. H. ludens would therefore be reduced to a synonym. The thing is, however, that every subsequent serious taxonomic treatment of Homo sapiens would have to cite H. ludens (and my bad article), listing it as a synonym of H. sapiens. Unlike other fields, citations in taxonomy are not necessarily a sign that someone has used a certain piece of work, it's just an acknowledgement that some name was validly published, nothing else. Suppose now that I would have published a whole bunch of new names in Homo. Someone would then have to publish an article to state officially that these names are wrong, otherwise they would become the valid nomenclature: the last publication counts. I would not call that "a lot of comment". It's just one article, stating "Crusio did a bad job", we reduce all names that he published to synonyms so that we can all be rid of it. Note that I would not need to publish my bad article in some reputable journal. It could be a "journal" that I produce in my back yard shed. In contrast, such an article would be completely ignored in any other field of science. To cut a long story short, I argue that taxonomy is kind of a special case here and the articles correcting the wrong nomenclature introduced by Hoser were not because he had produced some notable bad science, but because the nomenclature rules make it impossible to ignore such bad science and oblige other taxonomists to correct these errors. Hope I'm a bit clearer now than before. For more information, see International Code of Botanical Nomenclature and International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. --Crusio (talk) 22:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

PS: It's a bit ironical that here people are arguing for notability because someone has published science bad enough to warrant corrections by others, whereas here people are using the same situation to argue against notability.... ;-) --Crusio (talk) 22:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

If that was all he'd done, I'd probably agree that notability was borderline. However, the books, legal cases, press coverage and taxonomic SNAFU all add up to make him notable. Added to that, his self-promotional website Smuggled.com for me argues that he is a willing public figure. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Weak Keep; he seems to be a figure of minor controversy in several fields, that adds up to notability over all.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep this person has had 8 books published between 1989 and 2000, this is enough for notability alone. Then add to it two of those books resulted in convictions for contempt of court in Victoria, another one was the subject of proceedings to surpress its publication. Just today another court case(administrative tribunal) action completed[26]. Then theres the herpetology information. Yes the article is controvercial but it because this guy attracts it, BLP doesnt exclude controversies it just require them to presented in a balance way(WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE) with reliable sources. Gnan garra 05:44, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Comment I was asked by Tim to take another look, at the article--which he has much improved. I am not sure the space devoted to the taxonomic work of an amateur naturalist is really worth the trouble, but I suppose it does as to his credibility for his related work in conservation and related advocacy. That it was discussed in Nature as an example of amateur work is relevant to notability, though. He would in my opinion might well be notable even if he had never done it. I however changed by Weak keep above to a keep, primarily because of the Nature paper. DGG (talk) 22:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep per DGG. --Crusio (talk) 07:20, 16 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">
-[[Image:JreKoganeiSt.JPG|Koganei Station|thumb|200px]]
+{| width = "100%"
-{{nihongo|'''Koganei Station'''|小金井駅|Koganei-eki}} is a [[East Japan Railway Company|JR East]] railway station located in [[Shimotsuke, Tochigi|Shimotsuke]], [[Tochigi Prefecture]], [[Japan]]. It was opened on [[March 25]], [[1893]]. During most of the day, in excess of half of all trains on the Utsunomiya Line and Shonan-Shinjuku Line originate/terminate at Koganei station.
+|-
+! width="50%" align="left"  | <font color="gray">&lt;</font> [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 October  10|October 10]]
+! width="50%" align="right" |  [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 October  12|October 12]] <font color="gray">&gt;</font>
+|}
+</div>
+<div align = "center">'''[[Wikipedia:Guide to deletion|Guide to deletion]]'''</div>
+{{Cent}}
+<small>{{purge|Purge server cache}}</small>
+__TOC__
+<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blade Bladeson}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Where in the World Is Carmen Sandiego? episodes}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elena Lyons}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Myron Evans (2nd nomination)}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Curtis Payne}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Identified (Vanessa Hudgens song)}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lieutenant Bad Apple}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Anthony}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flaming Rapetime}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of former child actors from the Czech Republic}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dariush Kashani}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Loyola College Rugby Football Club}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rom baro}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Återförödelse (album)}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emer O'Loughlin}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Odd Senses}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leone Sextus Denys Oswolf Fraudatifilius Tollemache-Tollemache de Orellana Plantagenet Tollemache-Tollemache}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bay Area Asian Unity}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J. D. Cronise}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chance and Community Chest cards}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fractal generating software}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Loaded language}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Never Heard of It}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Tribe (series 1)}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Breathing Room}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Andrew Roth}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Dissenters}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Illmind}}<!--Relisted-->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edgardo Torres-Caballero}}<!--Relisted-->
-==Lines Serving Koganei==
-* [[Utsunomiya Line]] ([[Tōhoku Main Line]])
-* [[Shonan-Shinjuku Line]]
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Infiltration Unit Zeta}}<!--Relisted-->
-==Platform usage==
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cine TAM}}<!--Relisted-->
-{|table border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=3
-|-
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Granit Ahmetaj}}
-|style="border-bottom:solid 1px gray;"|'''Platform'''
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin Cassini}}
-|style="border-bottom:solid 1px gray;"|'''Line'''
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jinx.com (2nd nomination)}}
-|style="border-bottom:solid 1px gray;"|'''Towards'''
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of NPN Partners}}<!--Relisted-->
-|-
-|style="border-top:solid 1px gray; border-bottom:solid 1px gray;" width=70 rowspan=2 |'''1'''
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scarlet Fade}}
-|style="border-top:solid 1px gray; border-bottom:solid 1px gray;" width=300|<span style="color:green">■</span>[[Utsunomiya Line]] ([[Tōhoku Main Line]])
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mindanao tech}}
-|style="border-top:solid 1px gray; border-bottom:solid 1px gray;" |[[Utsunomiya Station|Utsunomiya]], [[Yaita Station|Yaita]], [[Nasushiobara Station|Nasushiobara]], [[Kuriso Station|Kuroiso]]
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Pendergast}}
-|-
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vonn}}
-|style="border-bottom:solid 1px gray;"|<span style="color:red">■</span>[[Shonan-Shinjuku Line]]
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/StrategyWiki (2nd nomination)}}
-|style="border-bottom:solid 1px gray;"|[[Utsunomiya Station|Utsunomiya]]
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Its Pouring Rain}}
-|-
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Core i8}}
-|style="border-top:solid 1px gray; border-bottom:solid 1px gray;" width=70 rowspan=2 |'''2'''
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Girl Called Kate}}
-|style="border-top:solid 1px gray; border-bottom:solid 1px gray;" width=300|<span style="color:green">■</span>[[Utsunomiya Line]] ([[Tōhoku Main Line]])
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HIORAC8}}
-|style="border-top:solid 1px gray; border-bottom:solid 1px gray;" |[[Oyama Station|Oyama]], [[Ōmiya Station (Saitama)|Ōmiya]], [[Ueno Station|Ueno]] (Some trains provide direct through service to the [[Ryōmō Line]] at [[Oyama Station|Oyama]].)
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oleg Gurtovoy}}<!--Relisted-->
-|-
-|style="border-bottom:solid 1px gray;"|<span style="color:red">■</span>[[Shonan-Shinjuku Line]]
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dora (singer)}}<!--Relisted-->
-|style="border-bottom:solid 1px gray;"|[[Ōmiya Station (Saitama)|Ōmiya]], [[Ikebukuro Station|Ikebukuro]], [[Shinjuku Station|Shinjuku]], [[Shibuya Station|Shibuya]], [[Yokohama Station|Yokohama]], [[Zushi Station|Zushi]] (Direct through service to the [[Yokosuka Line]])
-|-
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TinyAlbum}}<!--Relisted-->
-|}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of 18th century Brussels Freemasons}}<!--Relisted-->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/From The Ground Up (Dizzy album)}}<!--Relisted-->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Los Narcos de S.L.P}}<!--Relisted-->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Google Watch (3rd nomination)}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Este Corazon Llora}}<!--Relisted-->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Aylott (make-up artist)}}<!--Relisted-->
-==Passenger Statistics==
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rostislaw Wygranienko}}<!--Relisted-->
-As of 2005, an average of 3,947 passengers use Koganei Station each day.
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pomona New Community}}<!--Relisted-->
-==Adjacent stations==
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skyline Mall}}
-{{Tohoku Main Line}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kentucky Towers Apartments}}<!--Relisted-->
-{{Shonan-Shinjuku Line}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pourquoi les hommes ?}}<!--Relisted-->
-{{coord missing|Japan}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tara Chand (musician)}}<!--Relisted-->
-[[Category:Railway stations in Tochigi Prefecture]]
-[[Category:Tōhoku Main Line]]
-[[Category:Utsunomiya Line]]
-[[Category:Railway stations opened in 1893]]
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clutter (organizing)}}<!--Relisted-->
-{{Tochigi-rail-station-stub}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/We Are Many}}
-[[ja:小金井駅]]
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raymond Hoser}}
-[[zh:小金井站]]