Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 February 16: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 13:13, 25 February 2008

< February 15	February 17 >

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 Transwiki to Wiktionary. The primary policies to be considered in this discussion are:

WP:NOT and, more specificially, Not a Dictionary
Wikipedia:Verifiability
Wikipedia:Notability

Consensus by silence seems to suggest that the subject of "Wonk" is notable, and the content of the subject's entry on Wikipedia is verifiable. However, consensus falls short of leaning in favour of this entry not being classed as a Dictionary entry—that is to say, consensus suggests that "Wonk (slang)" fails to adhere to WP:NOT#Dictionary.

To that end, it is apparent that this entry cannot remain on Wikipedia in its present state. Proceeding forward, there are two possible courses of action:

Rewrite the entry in a style that satisfies WP:DICDEF#The differences between encyclopedia and dictionary articles,
Transwiki the entry to an appropriate Wikimedia project, where it would be more suitable for inclusion
Delete the article outright.

I am reluctant to undertake the third course of action, in that, as expressed in the discussion, the entry is both well-written and well-sourced, and it would, to all intents and purposes, be a waste to do so. As for the first course of action, no editors have suggested nor offered this in the discussion, and it is not the purview of the closing administrator to select alternative conclusions to a debate that are out with the consensus expressed.

To this end, I am listing the entry for transwiki to Wiktionary, and deleting the article.
AGK (contact) 22:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wonk (slang)

Dictdef. Well referenced, but a still a dictdef, and as such it should be transwikied to wictionary or some such place -- RoySmith (talk) 23:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ per nom's reasons which are absolutely correct. Transwiki is OK too.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 00:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to Strong Delete. Absolutely nothing more than dictionary material.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 17:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wikt. There's enough here for a useful article, unfortunately Wikipedia isn't the place for it. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. The article shows multiple possibilities for expansion. DGG (talk) 01:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Expand it. It's getting there to article status. Gary King (talk) 10:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Geek which is already covering the topic better. Note that we already have an article on the main notable usage: policy wonk. Redirection is the way to resolve this overlap. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 article was kept. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 16:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Radlands

Article doesn't seem to establish sufficient notability. Prod was removed with little imporvement. there are zero references and zero pages link there. Author is new and named User:Radlands4life and may be vanity or COI; user's only edits. Many uncited superlative words. Reywas92 ^Talk 23:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Weak delete - violates WP:MEMORIAL and WP:N, and the core content policies WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:V. Would be a speedy candidate, but for the ~~unsubstantiated and untrue claim of notability~~ A verifiable assertion of possible notability has now been found. EJF (talk) 12:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC) . EJF (talk) 19:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, I've found a non-trivial reliable secondary source, on this Northamptonshire BBC feature that said, I'm not sure if it is enough to make this park notable. After all it is only one source, and is very local - this park (and its closure) did not attract national coverage. I have rewrote the article (removing all the nonsense I mentioned above) using this and MoP's source, with an overly-liberal use of in-line cites. I'm not entirely convinced of notability, but I am now a weak keep. EJF (talk) 12:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Insufficient evidence of notability from WP:RS. I found couple of press mentions indicating it was one of the oldest, most established UK skate parks. The fan memorial page should go. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This calls it "one of Britain's biggest skate parks", which leads me to believe there's some degree of notability here. I'm not finding very many sources, however. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 02:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 23:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Change of vote to Keep per EJF, additional evidence, and EJF's rewrite of the article. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - first indoor skate park in Britain seems to signify notability to me. matt91486 (talk) 04:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable enough to keep. Gary King (talk) 10:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep After rework of EJF good enough to keep Neozoon 00:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 14:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Freefoto.com

Reason No pages link to this article. It reads like an advertisement and is probably not notable enough to merit an entry. TheOtherSiguy (talk) 23:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's not blatant advertising and gets a ton of ghits and has been online for ten years, but it's not notable. No third party sources covering the site in detail can be found.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 23:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Gary King (talk) 10:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of magazines and text books recommend this site.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] Phil Bridger (talk) 13:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Service referenced by a great number of on-net and printed guides as recommendation for high quality photos free of charge for non-commercial usage. Added only one reference to the article due to time constraint. Neozoon 00:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Phil Bridger, I believe that the abundance of refs available should satisfy WP:WEB in this case. RFerreira (talk) 22:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 14:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Swahv

Sounds like a hoax, or something that doesn't really exist. Note the following: Cultural origins: late 2000s (Decade 1), Seattle Mainstream popularity: late 2010s (Decade 2) United States, and Worldwide Also the links provided don't link to anything related to the subject, I think its some kids playing around. Jackaranga (talk) 23:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC) Note I just noticed it had been deleted by prod before, it was created by the same person as this time. Jackaranga (talk) 23:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, total bollocks. Could be deleted per WP:CSD#G3 for blatant misinformation.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 23:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is complete nonsense. Most of the article is nearly incomprehensible. Violates WP:EL as well. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:N + WP:CRYSTAL. "Pronounced Suave or Suave". Pburka (talk) 23:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence has been provided that this musical genre/movement actually exists. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete complete and total horse shit. JuJube (talk) 02:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Personal essay, incoherent rambling. Nuke it. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 03:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Sheer nonsense. Salih (talk) 08:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Gary King (talk) 10:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails the everything test. RFerreira (talk) 22:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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, with the weight of argument perhaps leaning slightly to keep.--Kubigula (talk) 04:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brigham McCown

Looks like a non-notable bio to me, and I'm not sure it even claims notability. I'm listing it here because I don't know if Deputy Administrator of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) at the U.S. Department of Transportation is a notable position (sure doesn't sound like one to me, but what do I know...). Calliopejen1 (talk) 06:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I dont think the position itself is notable and there's no articles about him to give notability Corpx (talk) 09:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added some references. He still seems to be quoted by Texas newspapers and broadcasters about road safety and hazardous materials, even though he no longer works for the government. It would be helpful to have more details about controversial policies that he had a part in developing and implementing. --Eastmain (talk) 05:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, barely. I don't know the person or the position, but it does seem to barely conform to regs.Sallicio (talk) 04:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)Sallicio[reply]
Delete - none of the references demonstrate notability. A quick Google search did not find anything notable. Sbowers3 (talk) 22:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 23:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Gary King (talk) 10:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom.BWH76 (talk) 20:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eastmain. This isn't something I would lose sleep over either way, but I feel that this now passes muster, barely, as revised. RFerreira (talk) 22:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. MBisanz ^talk 02:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Azuro

Article was brought up as a reason for keeping Intellitech, a similar organization (?). Realizing that the articles should be treated similarly, I attempted to find independent references for Azuro and could find only one, not multiple. Thus, to the best of my knowledge, Azuro also fails WP:CORP. — X S G 22:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Azuro is the subject of several EEtimes article (the main newpaper in the field). See for example [10] and [11]. Also mentioned in EDN, another large news organization [12] and [13]. This one is from EE Times, Europe: [14]. So it's definitely notable. All of these are written by others, not press releases. I have added these references to the article. LouScheffer (talk) 23:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: All but one of the articles you've added as references are essentially press releases written by a company representative. For example:

Power reduction tool extends to 65-nm -> Azuro Enables PowerCentric for 65nm

Starc adopts Azuro's clock-tree synthesis -> STARC Adopts Azuro's Clock Tree Synthesis Solution for Ultra Low Power Methodology

Azuro Cuts Power in 65nm Digital Designs -> Azuro Enables PowerCentric for 65nm

Power-savvy tool replaces clock-tree synthesis -> Azuro unveils low power clock implementation solution

I have difficulty accepting these as independent references. If that's the consensus of other wikipedia editors, however, then I'll have a much easier time finding sources for companies requiring citations. — X S G 02:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think these do qualify as independent. Usually the underlying material is the same for the press release and the article (a software release, a new customer contract, etc.). But the editor re-writes it, and they put their name on it, meaning they put their professional reputation on the line. This is basically a third party endorsement that the facts contained are basically correct. Also, this means they think it is notable in the purest (economic) sense - these publications get their revenue from advertising, so the editors must believe the information presented will be interesting to at least some fraction of their customers. LouScheffer (talk) 19:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are enough sources to help expand the article. Gary King (talk) 10:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 15:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Dancing Outlaw" Transcript

Original editor is attempting to build a transcript of the screenplay here. Even if GFDL is secured for the text, it belongs on Wikisource, not Wikipedia. Nothing to transwiki now, but not a clear candidate for speedy deletion. —C.Fred (talk) 22:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I would have tagged it as nocontext, but it would probably get refused. JuJube (talk) 00:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - as of now this is nothing but the promise of OR. No assertion of importance. No possibility of notability or verifiability. Sbowers3 (talk) 01:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Gary King (talk) 10:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 14:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Biruaslum

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. —Ben MacDui ^Talk/Walk 10:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Contested prod. I had a look at the Ordnance Survey Landranger 31, and noticed that this is nothing more than a stack (geology) at the west of Vatersay. It's not an inhabited place - it's like, a rock that sticks out of the ground, and not a notable one like the Old Man of Hoy. If you've ever actually looked at an OS map, you'll know that there are hundreds of such named locations and especially in the less densely inhabited parts of Scotland, and only a very small percentage of them are notable. Fails WP:N quite clearly, and there is a lack of verifiable information about its subject to write more than a substub on. Wikipedia is not a directory of non-notable uninhabited geographical features. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 22:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I was the creator of the article, and mistakenly believed it was a village. Epbr123 (talk) 22:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Islands, even small ones, are notable. --Eastmain (talk) 04:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable enough to keep, as above. Gary King (talk) 10:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. No, it's not notable enough to keep. It's not an island. It's a stack, of which there are thousands in Scotland alone probably. If Wikipedia had an article about every stack in Scotland alone, we'd be hopelessly overloaded with thousands of unexpandable permastubs. Do either of the keep voters actually realise the number of non-notable named locations (which need not be inhabited places or islands, they could just be the name given to a particular headland or something, and believe me, there are massive numbers of such locations that have names, yet nothing more) on any given Ordnance Survey map? This is completely, absolutely and utterly unexpandable. I urge you to reconsider.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 10:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - some stacks are more notable than others e.g. Bass Rock, Ailsa Craig, Old Man of Hoy, Stac an Armin, Stac Lee, Rockall - all of these have some element of interest. In fact it's easier to find stuff out about these than some of the larger islands, which are more or less sand banks e.g. Baleshare. --MacRusgail (talk) 23:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The islet was deemed notable enough to be mentioned by two writers on the Hebrides; I've put the cites in--they're small but there, as is the rock. Long may the Western swell crash into this stub.--Wageless (talk) 20:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - mentioned by FT, which persuaded me. --MacRusgail (talk) 15:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge with Vatersay. Just because its named on an OS map, it doesn't make it notable. It is just a rock, with nothing of particular interest about it. And it looks like it is connected by land to Vatersay, so not a separate island [15]. --Vclaw (talk) 19:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. Although all inhabited geographic places are inherantly notable, the participants in this debate have demonstrated that this is a single farm or other smaller subset/ group of buildings of such a settlement. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 22:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hilton, Argyll and Bute

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. —Ben MacDui ^Talk/Walk 10:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be an individual farm, rather than an actual settlement containing multiple families and houses. Anyone who's ever looked at an Ordnance Survey map should know that there are hundreds of named isolated cottages and farmhouses on each map, and most of them do not merit a Wikipedia article due to their utter non-notability. No possibility of expansion. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 22:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Ben MacDui ^Talk/Walk 10:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources provided demonstrate that the contention that there is no possibility of expansion is wrong. One of them mentions Leslie Crowther as a sometime resident and he was very famous. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep All settlements are inherently notable. This is a settlement according to the Ordnance Survey - isolated cottages and farms are labeled as such by the OS and it's clearly verifiable as a small place but a settlement not a farm. And the editing of the article to claim it was a former farm is little more than an attempt at deletion rather than reading the map, or the OS gazetteer to which the article is sourced, which certainly shows it exists and is not a farm: want to see how OS notes farms? Take a look at Hilton farm at 57°24′00″N 2°05′30″W / 57.40000°N 2.09167°W / 57.40000; -2.09167 or 56°08′06″N 3°21′36″W / 56.13500°N 3.36000°W / 56.13500; -3.36000 - clearly labeled as farms. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a paper copy of the map that this is on. I'll look for this just now and may consider withdrawing the nomination.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 23:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found it, and it still looks like one building - a farm or cottage. There are many on the Isle of Bute, and these are usually not notable, because they're individual buildings. If it was a hamlet I'd definitely want to keep it but it appears to be one building.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 23:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per arguments above.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 15:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. A reading of the Bute Farms source would seem to indicate that the Hilton Farm is simply a single farm, not a settlement or village. (The other source could be read either way.) The OS map examples are not conclusive either way. --MCB (talk) 06:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.This OS map shows Hilton as being even smaller than the two Hilton Farms mentioned by Carlossuarez46 above. It does appear to show two buildings next to each other, with a combined frontage of about 30m. But these look too small even to be a farm, and hence not notable. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 21:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 nomination withdrawn. 152.3.116.198 (talk) 00:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2 Base Encoding

This is why I nominated {{underconstruction}} for deletion. This quite clearly meets WP:CSD#A3, yet due to the existence of this template which I think serves only to fill Wikipedia up with junk like this, I'm discouraged from nominating it for deletion. The "show preview" button is there for a reason. Is it likely that the author will come back and transform this into an encyclopedic article? I think not. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 22:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move to user subpage, such as User:Hashtpa9/2 Base Encoding. It is clear that the article as it is should not be in the main namespace, however I'm rather surprised the nominator did not WP:AGF upon seeing the template. The page history shows that the author is continuing to work on the article (albeit in small degrees), and the author's contributions show that this is their first article and they are not likely to completely know what to do. Rather than delete this and really scare him off, I propose we allow him to continue to work on the article in an area where he doesn't have to worry about getting things deleted. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

close as premature The author had been working on it so far for exactly 2 hours and 27 minutes before the AfD tag was placed, with a series of edits continuing into the present. I've had a previous discussion on my talk page with the nominator. This does in fact seem to be a substantial method in molecular biology--see the reference posted on the initial version. It is permitted to build articles on-wiki in article space. Myself, I regard this as a good example of what the underconstruction tag is intended for. If the article in a week is no further along, then the author should be reminded about it--or if one wished to be impersonal, the article nominated for deletion. DGG (talk) 00:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

close I agree, we should assume good faith and give a chance for improvement. Beeblbrox (talk) 05:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not assuming bad faith. If this article is significantly improved by the end of this AfD, it can be kept. I just don't think it's likely that it will be, and this is where my issues with the underconstruction template lie. I believe that even new users should be guided towards creating an article that meets basic Wikipedia standards (enough to make them not qualify for CSD) before saving in the namespace. New users should be strongly encouraged to use the show preview button, make it absolutely clear what the subject of the article is, and why it is important.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 11:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Your last comment contradicts itself. You first say that you are not assuming bad faith, and then you say that you don't believe the article creator when he puts {underconstruction} on the article, which is a crystal clear assumption of bad faith. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Close as a bad faith nomination. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nom withdrawn. We can revisit this later.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 16:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.--Kubigula (talk) 04:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mound City Shelled Nut Company

Appears to be no coverage of this company and ~100 ghits are wiki mirrors and directory-like information. Fails WO:CORP Travellingcari (talk) 21:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Does in fact get a few mentions in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, but it doesn't really look enough for notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - only a locally known company, thus fails WP:CORP. Bearian (talk) 18:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. RFerreira (talk) 22:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Mathis

Unsuccessful candidate in an election, thus failing WP:BIO. Yahoo and Google searches turn up no significant coverage aside from him being a candidate (at least, not from anyone matching 'this Jimmy Mathis). Blueboy 96 21:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC) Withdrawing nomination ... my apologies ... Blueboy 96 16:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: youngest solo aviator ever to fly cross country --Jdurbach (talk) 01:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sounds notable enough to me. Gary King (talk) 10:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as youngest person to fly solo across the USA, for which I've put a source in the article. However he's not quite as notable as might at first appear: his Emmy awards were only local not national, as I've now clarified in the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 per WP:SNOW, by JJL. Non-admin close. JJL (talk) 16:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Detroit Institute of Technology

Non-notable educational institute. Contested prod. Ale_Jrb ^talk 21:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Very notable, it played athletics in the NCAA College Division, that is VERY notable. Keep --Josh (talk) 21:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - being one of 1200 colleges to take part in a nationwide athletics competition in 1982 does not a notable college make. Did it come up with it? Win it every year for a decade? Host it regularly? If not, I'd still vote for a delete. Ale_Jrb ^talk 21:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment; um, yes, it does. There's absolutely no reason why every single one of those 1200 colleges shouldn't have an article, and every single one of those colleges has buttloads of sources, if just talking about their sports programs.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See List of defunct college football teams

Weak delete. Despite the fact that the college closed way back before there was much of an Internet, I still doubt that this one is even remotely notable. If the above user's comment is true and can be verified, however, I might go for a weak keep. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per consensus, colleges are pretty much always notable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep; universities are an auto-keep. Any accredited school will have tons of sources. It played in NCAA college division, which means there are thousand of newspaper sources nattering on about how the teams going. Looking at books.google.com finds things ranging from Patterson's American Education to Detroit Institute of Technology: A College Grows in the Inner-city (1966) to Development and Projected Role of the Detroit Institute of Technology (1961) or The College of Engineering, the Detroit Institute of Technology (1972).--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as above. Being one of 1200 schools in the NCAA does assert notability, much less would assert notability. That said, this article does need a lot of work.-Kevinebaugh (talk) 22:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep real college [16], clearly notable per Google. JJL (talk) 22:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as accredited college. Legitimate higher ed institutions are inherently notable, and notability does not expire. • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 00:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The nom makes no case as to why this accredited post-secondary college is non-notable. --Oakshade (talk) 02:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even defunct colleges are notable. MBisanz ^talk 03:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm not sure how non-notability could be asserted. Maybe SNOW? matt91486 (talk) 04:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, even a casual search reveals dozens of sources. --Dhartung | Talk 05:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough sources to help build the article. Gary King (talk) 10:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 author request. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anuish Flag.jpg

Anuenue empire doesn't seem to turn up anything related in Google, and from the section talking about "warlocks", it may be a piece of fiction (of what, I'm not sure). If not, then maybe a hoax? Vivio Testarossa^{Talk Who} 21:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is fiction I'm sorry please delete it then, I was writing a story to go with my picture :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMagicCat (talk • contribs)

So you know it was not a hoax, family know it's a story I'm writing but it is fiction and as such please delete it
I'm so sorry for wasting your time, but thank you for pointng out my mistake so promptly!

Speedy delete, author blanked page (except for image) and has requested deletion, so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per author's request for deletion Doc Strange (talk) 21:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP: SNOW.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 15:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prospect Mall

This doesn't seem to be a notable mall in any way. Article was tagged for notability and refs since August 2007 with no improvement. A search for sources turned up only trivial local coverage, if anything at all. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Small indoor mall"--essentially says it's non-notable. Blueboy 96 21:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neighborhood mall with little local notability beyond being mentioned as a landmark in local TV ads for other businesses. Nate • (chatter) 07:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable enough. Probably not well known outside of the people that live around it. Gary King (talk) 10:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no notability. Agree with TenPoundHammer. EJF (talk) 17:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. John254 03:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mia Jones

Just about every reason for AfD applies to this article, pick one Jeepday (talk) 21:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; nominator fails to give any reason at all to delete the article.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article is not a blatant copyright violation, is not an attack page and is not a violation of Coppa or WP:BLP. I picked four. Silly nomination. JERRY ^talk _contribs 01:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough information to build the article. Gary King (talk) 10:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all the information in the article is verifiable by consulting episodes of Degrassi: The Next Generation. And since this article is about a television character, it cannot be deleted while the injunction is in effect. --Pixelface (talk) 19:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. Notability was claimed, as stated below, but not backed up and verified. David Fuchs^(talk) 23:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gutviga

The article doesn't assert its subject's notability. huji—TALK 20:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If a folk tale is remembered from the 17th century, that's a claim to notability, and if the content is true it should generally pass WP:N. Having said that, this does at the moment fail WP:V and ghits are low. No 'vote' on my part.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 23:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable enough to keep. Gary King (talk) 10:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Certainly asserts notability, but doesn't substantiate it. I would have expected a character such as this one to at least get a few hits in Google Books or Scholar, but there's nothing, so I'm a bit suspicious about this article. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of verifiability. The only sources I can find are Wikipedia mirrors! (Speaking of which, what the *&^%#@! is this Wikipedia mirror!?! All the words are intentionally misspelled in a dyslexic manner, obviously by some software. Wild!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MCB (talk • contribs) 06:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MCB. I looked at ALL the Ghits for Gutviga (and there are only 25) and none have anything more than is in the article. Most are simple copies of the Wikipedia entry (or the entry here is a copy of one of them.) If this were a C17th folk tale, I'd agree that it would be notable. But then it would have been collected and published, and would show up in a search. I suspect it is nothing of the sort, but even if it passes WP:N, it presently fails WP:V. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 22:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There is no clear winning argument in notability discussions of this sort, but the substantial majority of opinions are in the the "delete" camp and some of the "keep" opinions ("an exposé of abusive police practices" ... "should be searchable in Wikipedia" ... "a notable person because it was a notable and important event") fail to impress me. While a link to WP:BLP1E isn't very profound either, that guideline is at least something like established consensus, and it looks to be applicable here. That's why I'm not discounting these brief "delete" opinions. — At any rate, the incident is now also covered at List of cases of police brutality, which may be more appropriate. Sandstein (talk) 21:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brian sterner

Individual notable for a single event, does not seem to satisfy the broader notability guidelines. Carom (talk) 20:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7, absolutely no assertation of notability, so tagged. Just a two sentence news blurb isn't enough at all. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Damn dude, you got on this one fast. Less then 2 minutes after I finished the entry, I got an email that this entry was nominated for deletion. There hasn't even been any time to edit and refine this entry.

I started this entry as an example of police brutality, in the interest of including it as part of a larger reference database of examples of police brutality.

According to your arbitrary criteria for entry deletion of "Individual notable for a single event", then the entry for Rodney King should be deleted as well. Because he's an "Individual notable for a single event". In fact, let's take out the entry for Lee Harvey Oswald and John Wilkes booth as well, because both those guys are "Individual notable for a single event".

Why is everyone in such a hurry to delete entries? Less then 2 minutes after I finished this entry, someone wanted to delete it. It takes a little time for interest to pick up, and people to begin beefing up the entry. Geez, relax folks.

I nominate Carom for busybody of the day. --Douglasfgrego (talk) 21:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per Ten Pound Hammer. Also, Doug, please remember to assume good faith. Finally, you should note that your arguement does not hold water. Thin boy 00 @935, i.e. 21:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Addendum Just wanted to add that those people are much more notable than Brian sterner. --Thin boy 00 @938, i.e. 21:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "example of police brutality" is not enough of a notability assertion IMHO. You may also want to read WP:COI and WP:NPOV for additional issues. Also, I always clog these discussions with comments and need to stop. --Thin boy 00 @948, i.e. 21:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only notable for one event. Blueboy 96 21:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have transcluded a populated {{articleissues}} onto the page. --Thin boy 00 @962, i.e. 22:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being thrown to the ground by the police does not make you notable. Rodney King, with whom the author tries to draw a parallel, is notable for various reasons that the subject here is not, particularly the extensive ramifications of his case and the rioting that the acquitals induced. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obviously non-notable, fails WP:BLP1E and WP:NOT#NEWS to the extreme.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 22:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Only notable subjects are Simpsons and Futurama, the editors dont like things that happen in the news that are major events. Major events are not notable enough for them. Write it in a comic book, then you can re-add the article. (Yes, Im being sarcastic but this notable deletion is an abuse that happens way too much on wikipedia...)IronWolve 23:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep A quick search indicates that this person and incident is massively notable. WP:BLP1E only applies when there is a separate article on the 1 event and it doesn't seem that there is. And, in any case, there seems to be more to say about this person, such as this news item . The article has only just been created in the face of outrageous obstruction (the creator has now been banned for daring to talk back) and should be given time to be properly edited. If appropriate, the article can be renamed and focussed around the incident rather than the person but his name seems to be the best search term for this currently. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. WP:BLP1E doesn't state that there has to be a separate article for the event, it only states to merge that bio info with the event's article if there is a separate article. If the event is noteworthy enough, it should have an article, if it isn't that's just further reason for the biographical article to be deleted. -- Atama ^chat 21:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Merge to police brutality. Yes there are alot of news stories out about him right now, but not every front page headline automatically makes an individual notable. If anything, the incident might be notable on its own, but Sterner is not. AniMate 23:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge as stated above or Delete. Notability is not temporary - while he may be in the news now, he won't be next week. The article establishes no notability beyond the event. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO1E. No redirect or merge. There is no reason to rush to include this material now; if someone wants to add it a year or so after the incident, we will be able to assess its notability with a clearer perspective. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (but speedy unnecessary because the problem is notability vis-a-vis NOT NEWS, not that it's obviously unimportant). I see no indication from the article, discussion, or google that the person is notable in his own right. If the content is worthwhile it can be added somewhere else but there are so many thousands of incidents of abuse of inmates in jails and prisons, it's hard to imagine that adding yet one more is a big deal. Wikidemo (talk) 00:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep when an ordinary person has an event that is picked up by news media as being particularly representative or iconic, then that person becomes a public figure, and if the coverage is sufficient, then it is notable. Given that bbc has picked it up, international coverage demonstrates notability. I think this is the best rule for distinguishing. We should probably reword NOT NEWS to make the obvious even clearer. DGG (talk) 02:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Merge as per AniMate above. This appears to be a developing news story which should be searchable in Wikipedia. The Bearded One (talk) 07:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:BLP1E and WP:NOT#NEWS do not privide a blanket reason for deleting articles on events like this. WP:BLP1E is clear that it is about having articles on people separate from articles on the event itself, so it could be used as a reason for renaming this article, but not deleting it. WP:NOT#NEWS says "topics in the news may also be encyclopedic subjects when the sources are substantial"; the sources are obviously substantial here, including reports from Canada, India, Scotland and Australia. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As mentioned above. Gary King (talk) 10:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The subject also seems to be notable as a sportsman competing at the top level of amateur sport. I've put the ref in the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've seen this incident in the news, but "newsworthy" is not automatically "notable". Rodney King incident had far more reaching consequences, so the comparison does not hold. GregorB (talk) 13:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a news site. No hints of lasting notability here. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.He's a notable person because it was a notable and important event: perhaps the first most widely reported example of police brutality against a disabled person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.170.150 (talk) 00:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just thought to search Wikinews and there doesn't seem to be a corresponding article there. I don't understand why we have such strong barriers between the sort of article we have in Wikipedia and the related articles in the sister projects like News/Dictionary/Source/whatever. Isn't there some way to just tag something as news or whatever and have it migrate or be categorised automatically? Why do we have to have all these dramatic turf battles over technical details? Colonel Warden (talk) 15:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. I think this does fall under WP:BIO1E, but the somewhat extensive coverage that this has gotten makes me a bit wishy-washy. I think it's a bit presumptuous to say that this guy will be forgotten next week, but it's probably a safe bet. If this article isn't deleted from this AfD, it should certainly be reexamined in a few months and if he has dropped off the radar as many people predict it should definitely be brought up for another AfD. -- Atama ^chat 21:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong KEEP. The significance of this incident as an exposé of abusive police practices against the disabled has only started to be more fully appreciated. To get an idea of the ramifications involved here, see Wheelchair Dumping - Disabled Have No Rights with Cops. Like Rodney King, Brian Sterner had no way of knowing he would find himself at the centre of a major controversy about police practices, but that is what has happened, and regardless how other elements play out, his role in the ensuing legal arguments and debate about practices is proving to be a very important one. Sterner was recently quoted, saying: "Do I believe people with disabilities have been getting the shaft for a long time? Yeah. Do I want to do something about it? Yes. Absolutely." With or without Wikipedia, Sterner's name will continue to be notable and significant. I can't imagine deleting this without seriously damaging Wikipedia's credibility.--BuffaloBilly (talk) 11:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per BLP1E Will ^(talk) 16:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 already merge. --PeaceNT (talk) 13:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Roggeveen

Contested prod. No notability asserted beyond candidate in provincial election. No demonstration of coverage by reliable sources. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 03:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Gary King (talk) 10:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Moved from the talk page: Content is verifiable, notable individual for running in election, has past history in electoral race. Not purely autobiographical - has had multiple contributors. Valuable information on individual. 199.126.190.57 (talk) 06:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Running in an election does not, in and of itself, make someone notable. Winning it does. Bearcat (talk) 22:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(NOTE) Winning an election is not a guarantee of notability, either per this.--Sallicio ^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 04:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Liberal Party candidates, 2008 Alberta provincial election per standard practice on unelected candidates. Bearcat (talk) 22:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge (provisionally), assuming what the author says is true (none of the references given are acceptable), the subject does fall within WP guidelines. If proper references cannot be provided then the subject should be deleted completely.--Sallicio ^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 04:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep and rename. JERRY ^talk _contribs 01:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Morgan (Disambiguation)

Craig Morgan currently redirects to Craig Morgan (singer). The page for the singer has a hatnote pointing to Craig Morgan (footballer). Since the drummer doesn't seem to be notable at all, this page is thus an unnecessary dab. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've added more entries. However, Disambiguation should be uncapitalized, or the article moved to just Craig Morgan. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is expanding. Gary King (talk) 10:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Noms concerns have been rectified. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 05:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as of this edit, looks like a da page to me. BusterD (talk) 19:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted under WP:CSD G10, a violation of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Given that this page was showing up as Google's #1 result for "Robert Eugene Thomas", someone looking for material on the mayoral candidate would have found this attack page. That's not cool at all. Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 01:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Eugene Thomas

This person as running for mayor, and got charged with three felony counts. But that is all he did, which fails WP:ONEEVENT. All I find when doing a news search is a local newspaper. Soxred93 | talk count bot 20:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted as attack page. DGG (talk) 00:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Zwierzanski

Fails WP:BIO and WP:V. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 19:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom, it does not seem to pass WP:BIO. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 20:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete unsourced attack page per WP:CSD#G10 and WP:BLP. So tagged. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedied this page should have been tagged for speedy, instead of being sent to afd. I've just removed it as G10 as David E suggested. DGG (talk) 00:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. Edit history retained for GFDL purposes. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 14:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dawson Park

I have merged this artical into the Broughty Ferry sports section. This artical is no longer needed. - Colin012 (talk) 19:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - per nominator --Cradel 21:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Pburka (talk) 21:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Gary King (talk) 10:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and redirect. The history needs to be kept to comply with GFDL for the merged content. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as redir. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 05:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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, repost of deleted material; deleted by user:Moonriddengirl. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Cisak

Has not made an appearance in a fully professional league, so fails WP:BIO. robwingfield ^«T•C» 19:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated this for speedy delete instead (as recreation of deleted material), so would like to withdraw this AFD. robwingfield ^«T•C» 19:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He may not of made a performance in a professional league but he IS a professional (has a 3 year contract with Leicester City) and is playing regular 1st team football for Tamworth which is still a very high level of football, I feel that it needs to be taken into account that he is a young player on loan and it is a little harsh so delete the article when he is a young player that will play a professional game in the near future.Skitzo (talk) 19:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree with Skitzouk on this one, but even though he is young and I'm sure he will go on to make first team appearances for a league team, if not Leicester City. But don't get your hopes up, it's like banging your head against a brick wall with some people on here. Jonesy702 (talk) 20:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 22:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kick in the Ass

Seems like utter nonsense from an encyclopedic perspective. Term is a neologism, certainly not some kind of official motivational method that aught to be capitalized. Referenced are basically searching for any document that uses the phrase. ZimZalaBim ^talk 19:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Seems to be ~~made up farce~~ Doc Strange (talk) 21:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There. Sigh. I took out the part of my vote that offended the article's creator. but I still think it's deletable per WP:NFT Doc Strange (talk) 20:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; this article sounds like a joke or even patent nonsense. *** Crotalus *** 04:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; it's not only just made up, it's *also* not about the Moxy Fruvous song. --FOo (talk) 18:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep; to be frank I urge people to 1) do their research and 2) do not vote delete because it has a funny name. Or have a quick read to some of these academic websites [17], [18] and academic textboos [19]. This argument it self voids the above the three delete votes. Englishrose (talk) 18:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trivial mention of a neologism hardly seems sufficient, IMO. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 19:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's an official theory. You are confusing something that has a name to be a neologism. Theory X workers are names, it does not mean it's a neologism. Englishrose (talk) 19:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to reiterate what I mean by official theory: it's an officially accepted (ie it's in textbooks) theory as no theorys are official.Englishrose (talk) 19:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, trivial mention is a random textbook doesn't make something an "officially accepted theory", and this is a neologism. See the guidelines for Reliable sources for neologisms. We must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 20:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: KITA (kick in the ass) is a concept framed by Herzberg that is usually deployed as a kind of straw man theory describing how not to deal with employees. It appears in the business literature on motivation. Do a search on google books and you'll find dozens of business motivation books that refer to KITA. One could argue that the idea might best be dealt with in a broader article on employee motivation but that is for another day. Nesbit (talk) 04:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Such as Motivation#Motivational_Theories, which is also lacking in proper citations. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 14:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. — Scientizzle 01:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Pierce

Questionable assertion of notability (producer of "numerous" music videos, commercials, and a film with no article) has not gotten stronger since tagging in November. He is mentioned once elsewhere, as the producer of a music video of Here I Am (Bryan Adams song). — Laura Scudder ☎ 19:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My first concern is that the author of the article is clearly Mr. Pierce. Some of the claims, if properly sourced, may make him notable, but I have doubts. The IMDB entry for "Drinking Games" lists him as an "associate producer", so his stated role appears to be somewhat exaggerated. If this article ultimately gets kept, it certainly needs trimming (health issues and sports involvement need to go - this is not Myspace). // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 04:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Narcissism on display... and "emigrated from Connecticut to California"... that's just plain stupid. JERRY ^talk _contribs 04:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.--Kubigula (talk) 04:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boys (Ashlee Simpson song)

Violates WP:CRYSTAL. Notability not established. No sources. Ward3001 (talk) 19:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the song does not meet any of the critera of WP:MUSIC and per WP:CRYSTAL. Or maybe redirect the page to the main album article for now and then it can be re-created at a more suitable time. AngelOfSadness talk 19:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to toally miss WP:MUSIC and WP:CRYSTAL. Delete. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 20:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bittersweet World for the time being. Simpson has indeed said this is going to be the next single, although I don't know if the rest of the information is correct. It would be better to wait and restore the article when we have more verifiable information. Everyking (talk) 05:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I assume Ashlee Simpson is well-known, but this track certainly doesn't meet the criteria. Deb (talk) 18:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There are absolutely no sources for it being the next single. Her official website seems to hint at "Little Miss Obsessive" being the next single, and that's what other sites are saying as well, but even that's not confirmed. SKS2K6 (talk) 18:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. — Scientizzle 01:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Melendez

College football players do not need their own article unless they are exceptionally notable. -Colin012 (talk) 19:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a high school All-American--or a collegiate All-American either. And apparently never played a down for the Redskins either, so any claim he had to notability gets thrown for a loss. Blueboy 96 22:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article doesn't make it clear, but he was only a member of the Redskins organization for a couple months in the off season. Darkspots (talk) 00:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 for deletion, default to keep. Weak consensus to merge once the injunction is lifted. Sandstein (talk) 21:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The ArbCom injunction has been lifted. I have redirected per above interpretation of consensus. seresin | wasn't he just...? 00:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strongarm (Masters of the Universe)

This article consists almost entirely of plot summary without real-world context or analysis, which breaks WP:NOT#PLOT, and of original research. Additionally, it has no secondary sources to indicate notability per WP:FICT. Notability is especially doubtful as this character appeared in only a single episode. Google returns only non-reliable fansites and the like and unrelated hits which indicates this topic has never recieved substantial coverage from acceptable secondary sources. As such, it is unlikely any amount of rewriting or improvement can bring the article up to policy by providing real-world significance outside of original research or establishing notability. Once unencyclopedic, in-universe material is removed (per WP:FICT#Non-notable_topics), there would no content to merge into another article. Doctorfluffy (talk) 02:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into List of minor Masters of the Universe characters (or similar), along with others such as Batros, Fang Man and Icer. Plenty of other articles could probably be included as well, depending on where you want to draw the line. PC78 (talk) 12:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 23:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per PC78, or even a weak delete. This wasn't a recurring character - Strongarm only appeared in a single episode, and doesn't even appear to have , so notability is extremely limited. The best description I can find of this character outside Wikipedia ([20]) refers to him as "obscure and unusual". Zetawoof_(ζ) 00:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Gavin Collins (talk) 10:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails WP:V, WP:NOT#PLOT, has no reliable sources to demonstrate notability, and is written from such a heavy in universe perspective as to have no real-world content. I don't think the injuction template placed on this AfD applies, as this article fails WP Guidelines in any case. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is, unfortunately, no exception made in the injunction for clear cases. Zetawoof_(ζ) 20:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The injunction applies. This article is about a television character. The article cannot be deleted while the injunction is in effect. --Pixelface (talk) 17:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 18:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Apart from being a violation of the injunction, the nominator doesn't seem to have done due diligence per WP:GD. The nomination states This article consists almost entirely of plot summary without real-world context or analysis but, if one actually reads it, one finds that about half the article is such context/analysis which ties the fate of the character to the real-world availability of corresponding merchandise. The falsehood indicates that this is a bad-faith nomination. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ... which only amounts to 200 words, all of which is pure speculation based on the fact that Mattel didn't produce a Strongarm action figure. Zetawoof_(ζ) 23:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- First of all, the AFD was created two minutes after the injunction was in place. It unlikely anyone who wasn't watching that page was aware of it. It's ridiculous to claim that my nomination was bad faith on those grounds.
  - I made no claim of bad faith on those grounds. My claim of bad faith is that you made a cookie-cutter nomination without having made a proper effort to study what you want to destroy. Your claim of OR now seems similar - jumping to a conclusion without due diligence. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Inserting your comments inside my comments makes it unnecessarily difficult to follow the conversation. Doctorfluffy (talk) 00:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The entire first paragraph of the Profile section is plot summary. The second is OR. The nom is my typical wording for fictional AFDs and I simply forgot to reword it for this specific article. I've done that now. Cheers, Doctorfluffy (talk) 02:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into something like List of minor Masters of the Universe characters along with other one-shot characters. Also, the speculation about the character serving as a prototype for Fisto is original research and should be removed. *** Crotalus *** 04:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 02:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pittsburgh Black Sox

Non-notable semi-professional baseball team. The team is a member of the National Adult Baseball Association, which runs about 100 leagues nation-wide, and this appears to be the only team affiliated with that organization to have its own Wikipedia article. I found 19 google hits, most of which are to Wikipedia or its mirrors or to an old Negro League team with the same name. There were two newspaper articles: one in the South Hills Record, which appears to be a suburban weekly, and one in the major metropolitan newspaper, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (references appear at bottom of article). No evidence, however, that any newspaper regularly covers the team. These two articles, by themselves, don't provide enough information from independent, reliable sources to meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. BRMo (talk) 19:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —BRMo (talk) 19:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Definitely not a professional organization. The team doesn't deserve it's own page and I even question if the league itself is notable. Spanneraol (talk) 04:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is up-to-date and organized. Whoever updates the page seems committed to keeping it accurate. "The team is a member of the National Adult Baseball Association, which runs about 100 leagues nation-wide" certainly sounds legitimate. One hundred leagues nation-wide means that lots of people "nation-wide" are involved with this. Perhaps more teams and leagues like this would enter their information if they came across this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.79.146.120 (talk) 01:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Actually, there are more articles concerning this league on Wikipedia: [[21]], [[22]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.79.146.120 (talk) 01:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Please note that the anon editor has voted twice.

The large number of leagues and teams involved in the National Adult Baseball Association makes it more likely that any individual team is non-notable, because there is limited coverage of any individual league or team. Are any of these leagues or teams regularly covered by newspapers or television/radio media? More importantly for this discussion, is there any evidence that the Pittsburgh Black Sox receive more than an occasional mention in the press? Wikipedia guidelines are clear that "teams and leagues" should not be entering their own information! The information has to be verifiable by coming from independent, reliable sources. Also, the existence of other Wikipedia articles on related topics does not establish notability. For example, Little League Baseball is a notable organization, but no individual Little League team is sufficiently notable to merit its own article. BRMo (talk) 02:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 02:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

People Design

My reason for nominating this for deletion is, no matter how notable the subject is, there is a COI issue with this article as it was created by a user who is called Budelmann (obvious COI issue) and shouldn't user with COI issues not be allowed to create articles that is related with themselves Moosato Cowabata (talk) 18:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also not to mention non-notable company, which I forgot to mention as that article had been previouslytagged with a {{notability}} tag, which had been subsequently removed, which is another reason why it has now been nominated for AfD, also not enough ghits to justify notability. Moosato Cowabata (talk) 14:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm always a bit nervous when the identity of the person who created/edited an article is cited as justification for deletion. Ok, maybe that person made the article POV or created something not notable; but in that case the reason for deletion is POV or notability, not the eds id. I'm particularly worried by noms comment "no matter how notable the subject is...". Let's judge articles for what they are - not on the basis of who created or edited them. Annamonckton (talk) 18:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: nominator asserts reason for keeping not reason for deleting, so it hasn't effectively been nominated for deletion COI is not a reason for deletion--read the page. Someone please just close this AfD until it's nominated for deletion. As there is no assertion it should be deleted, there's nothing to discuss here. --69.225.10.208 (talk) 06:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Personally, I don't see what is notable about this company, well, there is 1,300 ghits for the "BBK Design", plus the majority of these ghits under "People Design" are not related to the company, so personally another non-notable company. IMO, people with COI issues should not be allowed to create articles about themselves or their own organisations. Moosato Cowabata (talk) 14:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't "in your opinion," this is Wikipedia. Wikipedia has guidelines about COIs. Please read and follow them rather than you opinion, as they specifically address attempts, like yours here, to delete articles about notable subjects simply because there is a COI. The guideline is: "don't." There also is a board to deal with concerns about COIs. Go there if you're concerned. But, personally? Doesn't matter. --69.225.10.208 (talk) 22:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I just generally don't see what notable about this company is, well there is 1,300 ghits for BBK Studio and most of these ghits on "People Design" do not relate to the company itself, so that is my reason like what the nominator said. Christiantroy (talk) 01:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't see what is notable about this company anyway and what about this Hermann Miller person, all that is is a disambiguation page, does not tell what he is and what he does. Anton Ego (talk) 03:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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, blatant copyvio by SatyrTN. Non-admin closure. Blueboy 96 22:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zoe Gustaves

Character in a book from an author published by a vanity press whose biography was deleted. Talk page contains enthusiastic comments from anonymous editors who, oddly enough, share the same ISP as the author. Moreover, the page is a copyright violation of the author's website. Typical advertisement masquerading as an article. Pichpich (talk) 18:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per db-copyvio. JuJube (talk) 19:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but I think it'd be good to let the debate run so that we can establish that there's no room for this article even if it were to be rewritten to assuage the copyvio issue. (note also that in all likelihood, the article was written by the book and website author) Pichpich (talk) 20:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete is a copyvio. So tagged. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 20:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion now contested by author... Pichpich (talk) 20:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. --PeaceNT (talk) 13:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keith How

Fails WP:BIO, not sufficient coverage. He has appeared in the programs mentioned in the article but not as a main character and according to IMDB only for one episode. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 18:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no attempt at notability. The burden of evidence for notabiltiy falls on the author, not the reader, to track down evidence of notability. It's simple, NO REFERENCES, NO ARTICLE. period.--Sallicio ^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 04:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete billed as "casino bouncer". Blast Ulna (talk) 12:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. Icestorm815 • Talk 00:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pharoah Williams III

Prod tag removed; non-notable RJC ^{Talk Contribs} 17:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain what we have to do to keep the article in on, we are new to wikipedia and don't understand what the requirement is, its important to create a wiki for Pharoah as a bio and history is due to be added. He is also the brother to multi platinum selling artist Pharrell Williams who is also on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thesecretnetwork (talk • contribs) 18:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to the above. There is nothing you can 'do' to ensure an article remains. Articles are kept or removed on a basis of notability. You can however bring to people's attention here any evidence showing notatbility (press coverage, material on respected mainstream websites etc.). But article subjects are either notable or not and there's nothing you can do to change that. Hope that helps. Annamonckton (talk) 19:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails Notability criteria--NAHID 18:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Some respectable refs, but not a huge number. Annamonckton (talk) 19:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm not sure what you mean by respectable references. The only one on the page is to a Guardian article about his brother, in which he is mentioned by name once (for being in the green room with his brother). Could you point out where his own work has been discussed in a respectable publication? For other editors, the criteria to be met are listed at WP:MUSIC; being related to someone notable doesn't count for notability. RJC ^{Talk Contribs} 20:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless true references are found. For what it is worth, Google seem to return only mentions of him as brother of Pharrell Williams, and being brother of a notable person does not confer notability. Goochelaar (talk) 22:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only references I can find are trivial mentions that focus mainly on Pharell. Notability is not hereditary; just because his brother is notable, that doesn't mean he is. Although he does win a few points in my book for not trying to get his name changed. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. Consensus not clear for the album, so that AfD will be relisted.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 15:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sól (band)

Not notable. Fails WP:MUSIC ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 17:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As well as: —Preceding unsigned comment added by DeadEyeArrow (talk • contribs) 17:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete band as WP:CSD#A7 - absolutely no evidence of notability Tivedshambo (talk) 17:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 19:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article does not meet notability guidelines. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 20:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. --On the other side ^Contribs|@ 20:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, A7 Classic non-notable musician's page. Blueboy 96 22:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let there be a deletion per nom. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 04:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, I agree that this fails to meet WP:MUSIC at this time. RFerreira (talk) 22:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Calle

Utterly unconvinced this meets WP:BIO. Self-promoting "prankster", t-shirt designer. Very few sources other than myspace etc. Camillus (talk) 17:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete people think this sites a joke as it is, we don't need to prove them right with statements like this Jacob Calle (born 16 August 1981 in Houston, Texas at the Park Plaza Hospital) is the supreme wanker of this generation --Hadseys Chat_Contribs 18:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He was given significant coverage in the media sources linked on the page and also seems to have significantly contributed to his field of entertainment, such as it is. Maybe some age bias? Jlivy (talk) 18:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)— Jlivy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment Three mentions in his local free newspaper hardly equals "significant coverage". Other "accomplishments" are mostly listed as "cameos". (BTW, welcome to Wikipedia, Jlivy). Camillus (talk) 20:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only reliable source appears to be the Houston Chronicle article. I don't think that's enough to save this article though. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 04:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 - Philippe | Talk

Monaco Film Premiere

As the article states, there are roughly 1,900 film festivals during the year and there doesn't appear to be anything notable about this one with which to expand the article. Ghits are blogs, forum threads talking about the films themselves, but nothing notable about the festival. I had speedied this as an advert for the festival but it was removed without comment. So I'm bringing it here Travellingcari (talk) 17:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it's probably notable and sourceable. Apparently Charlize Theron "opened" it last time, which means it will have news coverage. People are very interested in these kinds of events (interest translates to notability in some way). But it's hard to find sources given a couple things - language issues in searching google, and some question about the name. This seems to be identical to the "Monaco Charity Film Festival", which has a few hits such as [23] and [24], and no doubt with more searching some more reliable ones are out there.Wikidemo (talk) 18:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply No question it was poorly named here, so it will have to be moved if it's deemed notable. I searched under Monaco Charity Film Festival in English, French and Italian due to the prevalence of all three and came up with nothing from reliable sources, hence the nomination. If someone can find the sources, that's wonderful but they appear to be hiding well. Travellingcari (talk) 19:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Me neither, which is why I said "comment" rather than "keep." If nobody turns up with any better sources after a while, I'm in agreement that the article is deletable. Wikidemo (talk) 00:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 21:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete until the day sources are found. Blast Ulna (talk) 12:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Momentum Games

I tagged it as an advert but someone removed the speedy with no comment. Currently this is nothing but promo fluff for a seemingly nn company. A search for rs coverage is a bit deceiving because of people talking about the concept of momentum in games, but the few results are announcements of a new game, not coverage of the company. Ghits are forum threads and some of the same announcements, mixed with more of the concept of momentum. I don't see this in any way notable, so I'm brining it here. Travellingcari (talk) 17:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the company's top game seems to be non-notable as well. The Bearded One (talk) 07:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another 14:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. Merging can be discussed elsewhere by others. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 21:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Forbes (farmer)

I created this article some months back, and to be honest I think it shouldn't be here as it fails WP:BLP1E. The news coverage of this person extends only to a single issue. It's not a biography so much as a coatrack article. I don't know what I was thinking when I made it. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 16:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep he seems quite notable from his issues with Trump. Travellingcari (talk) 17:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sufficiently notable, or merge per WP:BLP1E if there is a suitable article for it to be merged into. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 19:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The golf complex itself hasn't been made yet and I believe there is no article about it at the moment. I'm not even 100% sure the construction of the complex is even going ahead now. Anyway, I'm surprised people are suggesting that this article be kept.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 19:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the basis of international coverage, which seems a logical standard. I think the notability is partially that he did succeed in blocking it, so that the course does not exist seems irrelevant as a criterion.DGG (talk) 02:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into main D. Trump article. No amount of international coverage changes the fact that this a classic case of WP:BLP1E. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per WP:BLP1E. Bearian (talk) 01:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per WP:BLP1E as others have written above.BWH76 (talk) 10:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This person is worth only a single sentence in the Donald Trump article, due to lack of relevance to that topic.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It could maybe just be redirected to Donald Trump per other articles where the subject has no independent notability of a notable person, like Brooklyn Beckham, Jason Allen Alexander and the way that Adnan Ghalib looks to be going. The type of relationship is irrelevant (child, partner, even enemy or rival as in this case) - what's relevant is that a nn person is connected to a notable person in some way.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. John254 03:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Knight (filmmaker)

Article reads like self-promotion vanity entry for a minor blogger and YouTube artist. Almost all references are to the individual's personal site or other blogs. While there are some claims of notability, subject does not appear to have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Fails WP:BIO, recommend Delete. MikeWazowski (talk) 16:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete with the two other prominent people (LA Times Art Critic and Brady Bunch Star) it's hard to filter but this appears to be the only coverage of the article's subject. If more coverage can be find, I'd change my !vote. Travellingcari (talk) 17:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC) Change to keep per sources identified below. ~~Article still needs to be re-written to add the sources.~~ Travellingcari (talk) 20:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Many external references and sources have been added to the article by your suggestion. I found tonight that Knight's first film Forcery was viewed and given praise by Weird Al Yankovic. This has been noted in the revised article as well. SChadwell84 (talk) 06:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see, you did a very good job wiht that. I've stricken the 'need for re-write' portion of my comment, I had already switched to keep. I'm not sure about listing YouTube as a souce, however, but the ABC and NYTimes, among others are certainly solid. Travellingcari (talk) 06:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - That the commercial was broadcast on a privately owned television station broadcasting to the general public in addition to its being archived on Youtube had me sourcing both. SChadwell84 (talk) 07:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SChadwell84 (talk • contribs) 06:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable given many major sources. See, e.g. [25] [26] and [27]. However, as an internet meme, per our convention here on such things the article should be refocused and renamed to be about the phenomenon rather than the person, unless the person himself has any independent notability.Wikidemo (talk) 19:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The commercial alone earned the individual considerable visibility but the copyright infringement claim that Viacom pressed against Knight and that he won gained him even more and in the interest of Wikipedia represents a noteworthy legal precedent regarding digital media and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The individual and his case received significant news coverage in: ABC News, The Wall Street Journal, Wired, Slashdot, ZDNet.com, IMDB Movie News, The San Jose Mercury News, CNET News, Ars Technica, Yahoo! News, Spiegel Online demonstrating international interest in the case, and other major outlets. Also will recommend keeping the article "as is" on grounds that the original work and its peculiar circumstance merits consideration of status other than "meme". Further this person was a candidate for political office whose originality and creative campaign was cited by The New York Times and several other media outlets, which refutes the original claim that the article fails Wikipedia's standards for biography. In addition some of the individual's other widely cited creative contributions have received considerable and official recognition: Midi-chlorians article for TheForce.net and his work toward TRANSFORMERS: The Score that was recognized by Warner Records, in addition to others. SChadwell84 (talk) 19:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - While the subject may have received some news coverage, one event does not make a person notable, as in this case, where the majority of the coverage is trivial mebtions. As to the sources you provided, you need to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources, many of which your provided sources do not meet. Your links to the Wall Street Journal, Wired, Slashdot, ZDNet, Ars Technica, the San Jose Mercury News, and Yahoo are all blog entries, which are not acceptable as reliable sources. The ABC article contains mention of Knight in passing on the fourth page - hardly major coverage. I would also hesitate to label Knight as an internet meme, since his sole claim to fame is a passing mention connected to a bonehead move by Viacom - something that was over and done with within a few days, and then forgotten by the internet at large. As to the other claims of notability, I hardly think an essay on a fansite is notable, nor has this editor offered any reasons or evidence as to why he believes it to be so. MikeWazowski (talk) 20:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment' - Wall Street Journal, Wired, ZDNet, San Jose Mercury News, Ars Technica and New York Times are not reliable sources? SChadwell84 (talk) 21:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Had they been links to actual news articles, that would be one thing. Blogs affiliated with those entities are questionable, as they are generally written without editorial oversight. I'm just saying, please read up on what kinds of sources are acceptable over what kinds are not. MikeWazowski (talk) 21:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There is certainly editorial oversight within these organizations regarding blogs which are becoming a routine method of conveying legitimate news from an established entity. These are not "John Doe" blogs which I would not source. How can you possibly claim that the Wall Street Journal, Wired and Ars Technica are not "actual news articles"? Does the existence of the word "blog" on those source pages invalidate the material and its source? That is what you are claiming. SChadwell84 (talk) 07:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed a personal attack by a first time user alleging that I am operating under the influence of another editor. This post included wild allegations of a conspiracy against the subject of this AfD, and posted defamatory allegations about another editor not even involved in this discussion. I would remind this new editor that according to the exact WP:NPA policy they linked to, posting "nonpublic personal information about Wikipedia editors" goes beyond the level of mere invective, and so can and should be excised for the benefit of the community and the project. Please, discuss the merits of this AfD, and do not engage in spurious accusations of conspiracy against other editors. If this AfD process results in the keeping of this article, I have no problem with that - that is what this process if for. But based on the original article, which did NOT have any significant references other than Knight's own blog, I felt at the time that the article merited deletion. MikeWazowski (talk) 05:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Has a personal bias driven the move to request deletion? I did not see it but if true that is very valid toward considering in our discussing deletion. That you removed the alleged personal attack yourself without letting others read and judge does not reflect well on you as the one requesting the article be deleted. Significant references to numerous external sources including major news sources have been appended to the article also this evening. SChadwell84 (talk) 06:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can see Persnickety's comment in the history. It seemed like a baseless personal attack, but I don't know the alleged history between the nominator and the subject. I do agree with you that it should not have been removed. I believe it's against Wiki policy to do so, but I can't find that policy. Travellingcari (talk) 06:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no personal bias against the subject - a quick look at my edit history will show a long history of AfD nominations for non-notable vanity articles, the majority of which did not pass muster and were deleted. As I indicated, based on the language on the WP:NPA page, deletion of that kind of personal attack was warranted and allowed. As Travellingcari points out, the comments by the SPA are still in the edit history, should anyone wish to see them - I have not called for them to be purged from the history. I would remind anyone reading this discussion to assume good faith and debate the article in question. MikeWazowski (talk) 16:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment personal attack redacted. Black Kite 10:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC) A study of MikeWazowski's editing shows that he and Hudgens as therealfennshysa share much history together. MikeWazowski regularly appears to take therealfennshysa's side in editing disputes against other Wikipedia editors. The pattern is so strong that others have noted a relationship between the two also including Hudgens admission to being therealfennshysa. In light of this obvious relationship with or at least bias in favor of one who has a demonstrated history of public antagonism toward the subject of the article including the possibility that MikeWazowski is the same person as John Hudgens/therealfennshysa I believe this calls the entire deletion request into considerable question, in spite of how MikeWazowski tries to defray discussion toward debate about the article's merits which others have upheld here. Recommend again to keep the article this time on grounds that there is strong evidence enough to question the request deletion and that the request has possibly been tainted with prejudice and that there is severe evidence that MikeWazowski is demonstrating personal bias against subject of article. SChadwell84 (talk) 20:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting theory, albeit based on circumstantial evidence. I was not aware of Knight's argument with Hudgens, although a Google search on the two names doesn't bring back any returns. I will admit that TheRealFennShysa and I have been on the same side in many debates, especially regarding Star Trek fan films, but we are different persons - a simple checkuser by Wikipedia staff will verify that. Furthermore, I'm extremely troubled by the public airing of what appears to be a private matter between these two, and I'm debating removing it from this page, as the allegations seem extremely wild and have no supporting evidence. As I have stated, I personally have no bias against Knight, although I will hold him and the article to the same standards of verifiability as any other article - my AfD nomination was based on the lack of sources and the possibility of a vanity page, as was the case two years ago when Knight's Forcery came up for deletion - I'd had the Christopher Knight (disambiguation) page flagged since I nominated the original article (a classic overstated vanity page) for deletion two years ago. If the article stays, so be it - however, baseless ad hominem attacks are not the way to proceed here. MikeWazowski (talk) 01:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You claim no bias however you admit to keeping an active watch on Knight? SChadwell84 (talk) 03:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Common procedure for me in regards to AfDs for vanity pages with extreme claims of notability but no references, as was the case two years ago. They're simply part of my watchlist, which has over 750 entries, and is no different than the eye I keep on pages related to individuals/subjects with deleted pages like Andrew Merkelbach, Chris Notarile, Christine McGladdery, F@NB0Y$, Jason Steele, Starfighters: The Praetorian Issue, or Tawnya Manion. MikeWazowski (talk) 04:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article we are discussing is not a vanity. Its subject matter been given considerable notability in major media. This is proven by the numerous external references to said media in the article. So what is your dispute about this article? SChadwell84 (talk) 04:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Staying out of the issue, however MikeW, I suggest you not remove SChad's comments per Wikipedia:Vandalism, which states in part, "Blanking the posts of other users from talk pages other than your own, Wikipedia space, and other discussions, aside from removing internal spam, vandalism, etc., is generally considered vandalism.". Talk to an admin if you want on WP:ANI, but I'd advise against removing it yourself. No, I'm not an admin but I knew I remembered seeing it somewhere. Removing an SPA post is one thing buut SChad appears to be a regular contributor Travellingcari (talk) 02:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Schadwell is a relatively new user, having only started his account on January 9, whereupon he immediately started making edits and contributions about Christopher Knight. In fact, his entire edit history to date (except for his user page) has been nothing but edits related to Christopher Knight. Read into that whatever you wish. MikeWazowski (talk) 02:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Knight's case has been widely discussed for its unique legal characteristics involving digital copyright. After examining it in a college class I joined Wikipedia to make the entry. I also believe that since Knight and his commercial have become featured widely in popular culture and major media, VH1 and The Soup on E and ABC News and Fox News and New York Times and National Public Radio in addition to others, this qualifies him as notable like The Spirit of Truth, another Youtube meme who received widespread attention. The high profile of Knight's contention with Viacom and how he used the Digital Millennium Copyright Act to win his case rather than giving up alone merits him as notable enough for an entry. SChadwell84 (talk) 03:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 21:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roosevelt Chapman

Not enough info to keep, no external links and no references. RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 16:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence he played at the professional level. Travellingcari (talk) 17:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A simple Google search turns up quite a few hits about him. He appears to have been a significant player on the Flyers team as per this ABC News article, he's in the Flyers Hall of Fame (which I'm honestly not sure how notable it is), and it seems that he's all over independent news sources as being a "Cinderella story" for his 1984 season (for example, this article). The article needs be re-written with sources added, but I think it satisfies WP:NOT.BWH76 (talk) 11:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Reading through some of the sources, it's clear he was one of the standout college basketball players of his time, including being the leading scorer in the 1984 NCAA tournament. I agree with BWH76 that there are sufficient sources to meet WP:N.--Kubigula (talk) 21:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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- fails WP:MUSIC ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Rapp

Artist is a techno musician/DJ. Article would fail WP:MUSIC except it claims he is emblematic of the "Savannah Sound". A gsearch for this term reveals no reliable sources. Related articles are two record labels started by Rapp, as well as several of Rapp's side projects. All appear to fail WP:MUSIC. Recommend Delete. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 16:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, no evidence that he passes WP:MUSIC. No reliable sources to be seen. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Per above. SingCal 16:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CommentArtist was featured on cover and in local music magazine for being emblematic of the Savannah Sound. a gsearch will most certainly not reveal the term savannah sound unless you apply certain terms like savannah sound DAMAD INSTITUTE KARST KYLESA UNPERSONS, but you would have to be in the know about that... I haven't gsearched this but I am sure you will find the Savannah Sound is deserving of a wikipage all it's own... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.155.56.184 (talk) 00:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC) _{moved by // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 01:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)}[reply]
Delete all. Fails WP:V, WP:MUSIC dissolve ^talk 10:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. --PeaceNT (talk) 13:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eesa

Non-notable student organization. Fails WP:N. Nv8200p talk 16:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

E.E.S.A. is a notable student association, being that every member of the unbc/ubc environmental engineering program must be a member. In addition, EESA (and therefore the unbc environmental engineers) are hosting the next WESST conference. They also atteneded CFES congress. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.181.168.189 (talk) 05:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 21:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NN. CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 21:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, A7. Stephen Turner (Talk) 22:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 02:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ORG. Student organizations that exist at a single school are generally non-notable. In addition, the "history" section of this article has been vandalized several times, yet there is no "original" version in the article history that can be taken seriously; it was apparently never accurate to start with. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 09:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the article may fall (barely) within WP:ORG but needs major wikification. It seems more like a MySpace page with its "notable" figures drinking beer from plastic cups. If someone with an interest can transform it into an encyclopedia article with proper references and third-party (such as news reports etc.) citations, I will gladly change my stance to Keep!--Sallicio ^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 05:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 03:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Guitarte

Totally non-notable. Page created 28 June 2007 by Acguitarte, i.e. the subject of the article. No substantive edits to the text by anyone else, and Acguitarte has edited no other articles. Leaving aside the COI and vanity issues, there is nothing here to back up any claims of notability: he has left a number of organisations; his links are almost all red, including his main claim to fame, the foundation of which he is chairman and founder. Delete Emeraude (talk) 16:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why? This is consensus, not a vote. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I find two articles on someone by this name, but nothing indicates it's the same person. I don't know how well newspapers in the Philippines are indexed by Google but currently there's no information to expand what now appears to be his resume. Ghits don't have enough information from which to further search for info. Travellingcari (talk) 17:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Almost certainly is the same person. The articles are actually from a Canadian-based site for runners and, by the look of them, posted on a forum (by him and about him). Further, notice on one of the articles the phrase "the true spirit of the Enduraman™", the Corporation he supposedly founded. Further delving has turned up a single page website [28] revealing Enduraman to be a "Management Consulting Company" and leading me to think even more that the nominated article is no more than an attempt at self-publicity. Emeraude (talk) 19:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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, which defaults to Keep. There does seem to be a consensus to drastically rewrite, even restart this article (one says delete and start over, another says keep and start over), so I'm marking it as needing sources and general cleanup and wikifying, with a renomination at a later date if the article remains in its current state. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plot devices in Agatha Christie's novels

Reads like a how-to (that is, how to read Agatha Christie novels). The items listed are not really plot devices, more like plot elements ("twist ending," for example.) Really a list of snippets of storylines -- the murderer was a child; the killer was hidden in plain sight; a character notices something odd, but cannot identify what it is -- masquerading as an article. Exploding Boy (talk) 15:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete largely per nom. I'd contend that this is an example of a well-intentioned attempt at synthesising Christie's works in a manner which is generally not a good thing to do. It's also entirely unsourced - by which I mean that the argument that these are common plot points is unsourced, not that these plot points actually occur. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 02:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now and rewrite when there are sources--there are enough analyses of her works that this can be done without OR. DGG (talk) 02:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete - Sordel. I created this page, which is linked from the Plot device and Twist ending pages and properly follows the explanation in those articles. Christie is a major, and acknowledged, pioneer of twist endings and other plot devices, but clearly the information collected in this article (which has been supplemented by other editors) could not be incorporated into the other articles without unbalancing them. My hope would be that a reader interested in plot devices would in the future be able to access from the Plot device page a number of similar pages that would provide a comprehensive account of an area of literature that is of significance and general interest. Furthermore, this information is presented more succinctly than elsewhere in Wikipedia; it would be of considerably trouble to a user to assemble the same information by reading the individual novel synopses. The criticism that the article reads like a "how to read Christie's novels" is, in my view, quite wrong. If the criticism is that the article is unsourced, then there is an existing procedure for requesting references, without resorting to the strategy of deleting a great deal of accurate and correctly presented information. I would point out that Wikipedia guidelines do permit lists, and I would be prepared to see this article renamed in line with naming conventions "List of plot devices and twist endings in Agatha Christie's novels" ("there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic", Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Since narrative is not merely an element of detective fiction but the primary element, a list of this sort significantly contributes to understanding of Christie's importance as an innovator in her field. --Sordel (talk) 12:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a legitimate topic, but you need to clear up the original research concerns. Ironically, if your article had been about some minor character in one of the novels, or if there was a badly animated cartoon called "Agatha Christie, Girl Detective" and you had written about one of the episodes ("Robbery on the Orient Express" would be a good adaptation for kids), then you'd be protected by an "injunction" that got put in place. However, intelligent articles aren't entitled to the same type of injunction. Anyway, there have been plenty of published articles and books analyzing the work of Agatha Christie, just as there have been with other well-read authors. Because there have been plenty of such items, I cannot advise Sordel strongly enough to refer to those and start citing them as part of the article; otherwise, this is will be deleted as original research. Rather than looking at internet sites, drive down to the public library, or, even better, a college or university library. If you're afraid that you can't do that during this coming week, then copy it to your user space just in case. Mandsford (talk) 15:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: We don't do literary analysis here. Also, as was mentioned, part of the problem with this article is that some of the items presented are not really plot devices, for example, "A character notices something odd, but cannot identify what it is." Ditto for "twist endings." If this article were reimagined as a List of recurring plot elements in Agatha Christie novels then it might be acceptable. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is academic but not encyclopedic material; it is original research of literary analysis. --FOo (talk) 18:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm always intrigued that "original research" and "literary analysis" (such aggrandising terms in other discourses) are such debased coinage here. How can it be either literary analysis or original research to list plot elements? The ban on original research in Wikipedia was not due to its being research or original but because Wikipedia should be a record of fact rather than a testing-ground for theory. There is no theoretical element to this article, and nothing contentious. If someone wanted to frame a countertheory - e.g. the murderer in The Murder of Roger Ackroyd is not the narrator - they'd have a struggle. Of course, the process of approving the article for deletion will run its accustomed course, but I don't think I've read a single Wikipedia page on a novel that didn't contain more original research and analysis than this one. (Not usually a subject for authorial pride!) --Sordel (talk) 21:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the description of what a characvter does in a novel can be sourced directly to the lterary source; the discussion of what are the major themes really does neede some basis other than just inspection. Butthere are dozens of books dealing with Christie, and thousands of reviews on individual novels. You really should try to incorporate some of this into a rewritten article. In this particular case, its relatively easy--any library should have at least some of this, and much of it will be on line. do your work properly, and make a better article out of it. done right, this could be an excellent example of how to write in WP about fiction. DGG (talk) 02:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree, DGG, that Wikipedia is no place for unsourced discussion of themes, but neither the word nor the concept of themes is addressed in this article: unlike the vast majority of novel articles. Furthermore, comments here seem to divide between two views: the original argument for deletion (that the article is "really a list of snippets of storylines") held that the page should be deleted because it was inconsequential, whereas subsequent commentators on this page have argued that the article involves so much analysis that it is not a contribution to knowledge without complete re-sourcing. If the article is insufficiently sourced then there is an entire community of Wikipedians that will one day get around to sourcing it; it should surely only be deleted if a page on Christie's plot devices has no place in an encyclopedia. Given that we have articles on Plot device and Twist ending, does it make Wikipedia a more complete and valuable encyclopedic resource to have a comprehensive list of examples in the work of one of the canonical writers of detective fiction? As for the offer "do your work properly, and make a better article out of it" ... this is a collaborative environment (I am not, for example, the only editor who has contributed substantive information to this article): the future of an article should not stand or fall on the willingness of any individual editor to work on it to the timetable or specifications of others. --Sordel (talk) 09:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

right, the "you" is meant as a general exhortation. In practice, for articles on fiction, it is very wise to source them as far as possible, and not rely on individual judgment. DGG (talk) 00:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with everything above, and come to the conclusion that the chalkboard does not need to be completely erased in order to write on it. Just address the concerns at WP:EDIT and close this AfD for now. It can always get renommed later if the desired improvements do not occur. JERRY ^talk _contribs 04:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep per Jerry. Also note that many secondary sources exist talking abotu Agatha Christie's works so sourcing almost certinly exist in addition if someone wants to bother hunting them down. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Keep, per Jerry. When writing about novels, etc, the summarization of plots is not OR. The novel itself is the reference material. Well-written. --Sallicio ^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 05:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources, is synthesis. Blast Ulna (talk) 12:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 15:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Power Nine

This article is about nine cards from the collectible cards game Magic: The Gathering. It is full of game rules and interna which in my opinion are of no interest for an encyclopedia and should go to a Magic-Wiki (if one exists). -- 790 (talk) 14:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is a Magic:The Gathering Wikia and this is the article on the Power Nine (for those considering Transwiki) --Lenticel ^(talk) 14:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep These are not just any nine cards. They are notable enough to show in a Google Scholar search. The nominator's reason of no interest is no argument, per WP:NOTINTERESTING. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article as-is is written in a terrible in-universe style which does not reflect any real-world important outside of the MTG scene. I'm open to changing my vote given the article undergoes a serious rewrite. JuJube (talk) 19:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article contains almost no in-universe content. Consider the first card, for example: the Black Lotus. There is nothing about this flower in the world of Dominaria and its magical effects in that fictional universe. Instead the content is details like the artwork and artist; the value of the card in the game and in hard cash; and its status in tournament formats. This is all real-world content. Dismissing this by outside the MTG scene is otiose because most everything is unimportant outside its own scene. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Black Lotus has unparalleled power in terms of mana acceleration, temporarily putting the owner 3 turns ahead in mana development. This advantage, combined with other efficient and powerful cards, allows its user to get so far ahead that victory can become inevitable as early as turn 1. Yeah, that's totally supposed to mean something to a non-player. JuJube (talk) 19:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try reading a mathematics article such as Direct sum. The Power Nine article is comparatively comprehensible for the layman. In any case, this is no reason to delete. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant keep. The article does include real world references, such as information about the artists. Better this than an article about each card. Pburka (talk) 20:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; there's plenty of real world information here and real-world sources.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. This is a very detailed article about a very narrow topic. It is just on the border of being game rules and minutiae. The Bearded One (talk) 07:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question - why has Wikipedia to mirror game- and fantasy-world-wikis, like it is the case here, as the weblink given by Lenticel shows? This seems to be plain nonsense to me. BTW I have been playing MTG myself, but I think there is no reason to repoduce complete fantasy worlds of recent origin here, when there are other places out there which specialise on that. -- 790 (talk) 11:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Answer Wikipedia is a tertiary compendium of all the world's knowledge. The policy for inclusion is that the knowledge is covered not only in primary sources but also in secondary sources. So, by these terms of reference, every article here is, or should be, covered by layers of detail elsewhere. The existence of such secondary sources establishes notability rather than being a reason to exclude the material. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Objection: Wikipedia is not a compendium of all the world's knowledge, but an encyclopedia. As such it collects information about the real world. It does not need to go to depths over fantasy worlds, especially when these are only few years old, and their influence und durability in human culture has yet to be shown. Also, the existence of specialised wikis about such a topic may well indicate its overall notability, but that is no reason to go into all the gory details - Wikipedia ist not a game guide. -- 790 (talk) 12:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand that game guide point which is that articles shouldn't read like training manuals or textbooks - no problems, strategy and walkthroughs. Much or most of the material in this article is not like that. It just some facts about a notable selection of a few of the thousands of cards in a game which is played by millions. This is exactly what an encyclopaedia should contain. If you actually want to play Magic well, you go to another site to read up on the latest net decks. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing fantasy in this article. As has been pointed out before in this AfD, this article does not go into the details of flowers on Dominaria; it goes into real life things like these cards having incredible value both when played in a game (which is no more a fantasy world than chess or checkers) and because of that having high value in real life. --Prosfilaes (talk) 19:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agree with Prosfilaes & Colonel Warden. Article details their importance to Magic history as well as collectiblity. However article needs a clean up and more references. Stextc (talk) 02:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Essex shooting rampage

Not especially notable murder case. Article written in a tabloid style with no supporting citations, and is full of speculation and aparrently original research. I removed some of the worst excesses but much more needs to be done to fix this and I don't believe the notability warrants it. Ros0709 (talk) 14:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems to be much more news than anything else. Shootings aren't inherently notable, and without references it can't be proven to be notable. Nyttend (talk) 14:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - what I would consider a COI, in that the creator is from the area and feels "THIS WAS A VERY LARGE INCIDENT FOR THE PEOPLE OF VERMONT" (actual first line of the article at one point). Pairadox (talk) 14:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. At least until it can be decided whether the article can be rehabilitated. Wikipedia isn't paper. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:PAPER states "This policy is not a free pass for inclusion: Articles still must abide by the appropriate content policies, in particular those covered in the five pillars." Ros0709 (talk) 16:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Full disclosure; I am also from the area, and have an indirect connection (the woman killed at the school was my nephew's teacher the previous year).
As horrible as this incident was, it was not in the long term more notable than any of the other multiple murders that happen across the country each year. As the events unfurled, there was community concern because one of the three shooting locations was the local elementary school, however the event began and ended at private residences, and was quickly understood to be a domestic dispute gone horribly wrong. It was also traumatic because in one day the town had more murders than in a normal decade. Having said that, it is still no more notable than such an incident in any other usually peaceful small community across the nation.
If the school had been in session, or if school itself was a target (rather than the ex-girlfriend who happened to teach there), or if a Police Officer had been wounded or killed, I would argue that it was notable, but as is it is not more notable than other such incidents (which unfortunately still happen every year someplace) which Wikipedia does not normally cover. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 16:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - We don't need to be remembering the people who do these things. The quicker they're forgotten, the less likely they are to inspire others to do the same. - Denimadept (talk) 19:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Not exactly the kind of reasoning that will make much of a difference here. Pretty crappy article, though - WP:NOT#NEWS sounds good enough for me. Delete. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if promptly sourced. School shootings are essentially always notable--this is a little different than most of them, but there will be sufficient sources. It was incredible careless not to have put them in originally. Of the above delete arguments, one is that the act was reprehensible, one was that based on local knowledge it was not exceptional, one that the quality was very low, one that the author had COI in coming from the general area, & not news, used for something which is more than temporary new, extending over several years at least--the trial has not yet taken placed two year afterwards, and the nom admitting its notable but saying it isnt worth improving the quality. None of them valid arguments, most of them not even based on any possible WP policy. DGG (talk) 03:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As nominator I most definitely did not admit it was notable. I said that I had not improved the article any more than I had because it lacked notability and doing so was not worthwhile. Ros0709 (talk) 08:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Your justification for keep is that this was a school shooting and school shootings are always notable. But this was not a school shooting per se. It was a domestic incident which happened to involve a teacher so took place partly in a school building - but the school was not in session. Ros0709 (talk) 08:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree, this is a domestic violence incident that happened at the victims' workplace, which happened to be a school. (The most prominent fact is that the school was not in session at the time, so there were only employees in the building at the time). If it had occurred at a flower shop, what would you call it? Mandsford (talk) 15:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WP:NOT#NEWS. BusterD (talk) 19:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 14:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unit theory

Unreferenced original hypothesis. Prod tag was removed. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 14:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Entirely original research with no references. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 17:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Original research. No references. Agree with nominator and Kim Dent-Brown. --On the other side ^Contribs|@ 19:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This seems to be original research, and there are no references provided. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 20:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and put in a museum as a perfect example of what WP:OR refers to. Goochelaar (talk) 22:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:OR and it is a completely orphaned article. The Bearded One (talk) 07:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:SNOW. Entirely unsourced original research - the submitter even gave a clue with the edit summary "(NEW SCIENTIFIC THEORY [please see this])". Ros0709 (talk) 16:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete meaningless. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Snow delete as nearly incoherent nonsense. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was snowball delete. Acalamari 19:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Poosyncope

The creator of the article admits that s/he made up the word and that it's not in use by anybody else.[29] Pairadox (talk) 14:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per WP:DICT and WP:MADEUP. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 14:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:Neologism Tivedshambo (talk) 14:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MADEUP. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 14:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete for any or all of above reasons. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

also poo-syncope Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this crap as a madeup dicdef. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Created by a "registered medical practitioner" apparently - what fun they must have on the ward. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 17:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sounds like some doctor's son read his books and made up a funny word, lulz. Delete this poo. JuJube (talk) 19:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DICT, WP:MADEUP, WP:OR and WP:V(3 google hits: 2 link to the article and 1 links to a polish forum). AngelOfSadness talk 19:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 14:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Highest-understanding theory

Non-notable theory/original research (although it appears to be based on Myers-Briggs Type Indicator). --Snigbrook ^(talk) 13:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Quite certain that this is original research and a quick google would suggest that it non-notable as well. nancy ^(talk) 15:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. Mkeranat (talk) 12:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Non-encyclopedic WP:OR. Wikipedia is not a peer review. --Evb-wiki (talk) 14:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Denman

It has been tagged for cleanup and tagged for having no references at all since June 2007. There has been no effort to rectify this as far as I can see. The page consists basically of three lines of unreferenced text followed by three lengthy sections of links to Denman's films and other articles. Capitana (talk) 13:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I support deletion as the nominator Capitana (talk) 13:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep appears to have had billed roles in the National Lampoon Dorm Daze series. Catchpole (talk) 22:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

reply - I'm not disputing who the guy is but it doesn't seem anyone is interested in rectifying the reference situation. I am not really interested in the subject so there's little point in me trying to fix the article. I will remove the nomination if someone offers to fix the article up though. --Capitana (talk) 23:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jj137 (talk) 20:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - Having had tags for a long time is not a valid reason for deletion. matt91486 (talk) 23:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, the nominator has been blocked as a sockpuppet. matt91486 (talk) 23:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep Will ^(talk) 15:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shit

I think we should delete this. Grounded into a double play (talk) 12:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not censored, you may consider an article to be vulgar[30] but it is not a reason to delete the article. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 12:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and close Bad-faith nomination. Lugnuts (talk) 13:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and close per above. Redfarmer (talk) 13:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and close This seems like an obvious bad-faith nomination to me. "We should delete this" does not a nomination reason make. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 14:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge It should be turned into a disambiguation page as there are at least four different meanings - excrement, exclamation, drugs and metaphor. The current content is too dictionary-like - all about etymology and usage. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep as per WP:SNOW.

Groove metal

This is not a real music genre please remove it from Wikipedia. Mehplep188.47 (talk) 12:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - there are plenty of independent references to the term on the web (eg here) and in print (eg New Wave of American Heavy Metal, Garry Sharpe-Young). The article may or may not suffer from problems of OR, but deletion is not the answer. — BillC ^talk 12:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nom cites no policy on WHY it should be deleted. Geninue genre of music, although poorly sourced, doesn't need deletion. Lugnuts (talk) 13:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if you're going to complain about the existence of a music genre, don't do it with metal - seriously, it's the Rule 34 of music. As far as the article goes, sources indicate it's does exist. Will ^(talk) 15:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sources all point to the legitimate existence of groove metal. http://www.metal-archives, http://www.metal-observer.com both acknowledge the genre. The following discussion was realized (some time ago) to address the validity of the genre. As you can see it as determined that the genre does exist and is distinct enough to deserve a separate article. --Pasajero (talk) 16:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bad faith nom. actually it is a real genre. Mostly it's associated with Pantera. Did you do any research before you proclaimed this genre's non-existence? There's enough citations in this article along with mention here and several other sources. Granted people do make up genres, but this isn't one of them Doc Strange (talk) 17:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - such a statement is POV, Original Research and Bad Faith. There is completely no way to delete it. And the section Key Artists included well collected information with SOURCES. You could actually delete most of the text in Wikipedia if you would delete every sentence that has no sources. And that is not the creative way. You should try to add the sources, not try to delete the unsourced information--Lykantrop ^(Talk) 22:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Mehplep you're a moron. Such statements are strongly point of view and this article has many, many citations - verifiable citations. The most notable are from a record company and from bands themselves. Stop being an asshole.DarrelClemmons (talk) 19:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Your argument is invalid, mehplep74.226.157.119 (talk) 20:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 closing. Darkspots (talk) 00:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries by Kurdish-speaking population

Unlike List of countries by English-speaking population, the used sources focus on people of Kurdish ethnicity. I checked the web a bit and could not come up with any such source. Kurdish ethnic distribution is already covered in Kurdish people. So this article suffers from 100% original research. -- Cat ^chi? 12:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep The article seems to be adequately sourced. If the nominator is just making some nit-picking point about a supposed difference between Kurdish-speaking and Kurdish ethnicity then he can retitle the article accordingly without an AFD. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kurdish people already has this content. Ethnicity and language are not the same thing. Consider List of countries by English-speaking population. -- Cat ^chi? 22:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Consider Demographics of the Kurdish people and its redirects. You don't need AFD to merge with that. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then this can be closed early. Would you mind doing what you suggested. I have a COI on the matter so I avoid such articles as much as I can. -- Cat ^chi? 22:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep (or merge this information into some of the articles listed). The Kurdish people are in a unique situation, being a substantial minority in several adjacent nations, but lacking their own independent state. Reliable figures (there has to be one table, rather than a construct from several sources) can be found and sourced. Mandsford (talk) 15:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The uniqueness of the Kurds is completely irrelevant, this is about a language not ethnicity. Lack of reliable sources on the speakers of the language is the problem of compliant. I looked around and could not find sources on the speakers of the language. I requested sources quite some time ago and there had been no progress since then. I would support any salvage operation though. -- Cat ^chi? 20:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Speedy Keep. Wanting to improve an article is not a reason for AfD. Bearian (talk) 20:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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, default to keep. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weapons of Resident Evil 4

Contested prod. Person who contested thinks this falls under the Arbcom injunction against the deletion of fictional characters and episodes but I strongly disagree, as this is not about any fictional character but about a handful of weapons in a video game. Fails WP:LIST, WP:GUIDE, WP:NOT#LIST. Redfarmer (talk) 12:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with the nominator. This is too much detail for a single video game. Bláthnaid 15:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to keep after Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles's improvements. Excellent work :-) Bláthnaid 14:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! :) Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - moved to capitalised game name, per WP:NC. Will ^(talk) 15:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Merge to Resident Evil 4 (see further down). Take your pick from WP:NOT, but I'll go with "Wikipedia is not a game guide". PC78 (talk) 16:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Still delete~~ following improvements by Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles. Sorry, but it's still a game guide. Worth a mention in the Resident Evil 4 article, perhaps, but it's basically just unencyclopedic cruft. PC78 (talk) 16:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not. Game guides do not have sections on reception and a host of reliable secondary sources as this article does. Also, please see here and here. Finally, you already voted to delete above. Please do not vote twice in an AfD, i.e. having the bold around delete appears as a second vote. if you want to add a comment, say "I still feel" or something, but not in bold. Regards, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kindly don't strike out part of my comment; AfD is not a "vote", and in any case I trust the closing admin will be able to count. And don't dismiss my comment as WP:IDON'TLIKEIT (which it clearly isn't) when I am quite clearly still of the opinion that it fails WP:NOT#GUIDE (which it does). The "Reception" section offers little of significance, while the refs themselves seem to be mostly just gameguides and are thus very weak; I still don't see any real world notability that would warrant an article such as this. I appreciate the effort you have put into improving the article, but it really is still just gamecruft. PC78 (talk) 21:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did not strike out your comment, someone else did. Your opinion here is clearly an "I don't like it", because the article passes our guideline overwhelmingly. The reception section offers much of signifance and the strong references go beyond gameguides. The weapons that appear in a game, as a controller, and with action figures and that have been covered in reliable sources have real world notability to millions of game players and magazine readers worldwide and it therefore warrants an article such as this one. Thank you for appreciating my effort, but again, please consider that article has been improved, is only a few days old, and thus we do not need to rush to delete it. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the misunderstanding. And by all means interpret my comments however you wish, but it seems that you and I are not in agreement about what passes for notable. Credit where credit is due - this article has come a long way since this AfD began, and for that I'll change my stance to merge rather than delete. But I still think you're clutching at straws to establish this as a standalone article. The "Creation" section is essentially one big quote which poses possible copyright problems; "In game weapons" is pure game guide, whichever way you look at it (and in spite of the references); "Chainsaw controller" and "Toys" both relate more to the game as a whole rather than this specific aspect of it, and even the "Reception" section as well to a point. In short, I still don't think it's enough. Perhaps you'd be better off with an article that covered weapons in the series as a whole rather than just this one game? PC78 (talk) 16:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Polite disagreement between two editors is perfectly fine; so it's cool. :) And thank you for the willingness to change your stance and acknowledge the improvements. My main feelings are just that the article is still less than a week old and in that short amount of time we have been able to do a good deal with the article. I would simply appreciate at least a little more time to see if I can track down any additional sources, maybe find more fair use images, etc. and then even if the consensus is to merge, at that point we will already have better referenced and written content to merge as well. As I indicated as a reply to someone else in this discussion, I am not opposed to and would be willing to help build an article on weapons in the series as a whole. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not covered by the injunction per nom, and per WP:NOT. JuJube (talk) 19:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This isn't covered by the Arbcom injunction - Resident Evil 4 is a video game, not a television show, and the injunction only covers articles about a "television series episode or character". Pure game-guide material anyway. Zetawoof_(ζ) 00:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Close as covered by the injunction Consensus at the talk page of the arbcom and at similar afds is that the injuction is to be interpreted broadly. The arguments for deletion here are just the same as the ones being discussed there. DGG (talk) 03:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Citation needed. The injunction only mentions television shows and characters; the injunction would have to be rather broad to be interpreted as also covering articles about weapons appearing in video games. Zetawoof_(ζ) 07:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The arbcom has not extended the injunction to include items or video games. -- Ned Scott 12:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, please explain to me how rocket launchers and rifles can be construed to be characters in a fictional television series? Redfarmer (talk) 12:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ There isn't even anything unique about these weapons that would warrant a mention on the main article (except perhaps as a minor sentence that says "includes typical weapons like a gun and a rocket launcher"). -- Ned Scott 12:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and maybe keep Some interesting new content has been added that is worth keeping. I would even support just a plain old keep to see how far this can go, and revisiting discussion on this later on. -- Ned Scott 02:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Needs to establish notability through reliable sourcing. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just noting that the above opinion has changed as addressed here. And to repeat, I greatly respect Blathnaid, Judgesurreal777, and Ned Scott for their class and objectivity in acknowledging the efforts to improve the article. Bravo to all three of you! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another 14:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep as notable aspect of a major game. I will work on adding published sources to the article as soon as I finish typing this message here, as I know I have at least one published reliable source to add, but may have others. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I have thoroughly revised the article by adding published sources (GamePro, BradyGames, etc.), a photograph I took of the special chainsaw controller (the weapons in Resident Evil 4 are notable, because it is the only game ever to have a chainsaw controller made based on the weapons), cleaned up some of the grammar, etc. The article now looks substantially better than it did when nominated and before my post above. Please compare the old version with the new version thanks to my nearly 20 major revision edits. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, this AfD is also mentioned here, which is how I came across it. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT a gameguide, gives undue weight to a minor aspect of gameplay. A short summary of weapons in-game can be added to Resident Evil 4, what are we talking here, a couple of sentences? RE4's weapons don't need a seperate article any more than Resident Evil's, Resident Evil Code Veronica's etc. unless there is significant coverage, out-of-universe information etc. It's of little surprise that a strategy guide book has details of the weapons, who else is saying what? See [31] [32] [33] [34]. Someone another 18:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article now contains references beyond just a game guide, but also GamePro, GameSpot, IGN, etc. and the fact that a special and unique chainsaw controller was made for the game indicates that it is a major aspect of gameplay. Even if other similar articles were deleted, they may not have had the sourcing that this article now has, and besides consensus can change. Also, there were at least some keep "votes" in the discussions linked above. See [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], etc. Finally, we can afford to have a little leeway with Resident Evil articles, as notability and interest is unquestionable: Game Informer (the self-proclaimed "World's #1 Computer & Video Game Magazine" according to its covers) calls the "multi-million dollar franchise" of Resident Evil "Capcom's largest" and refers to "the original Resident Evil" as "one of the most important games of all time." See "Enter The Survival Horror... A Resident Evil Retrospective," Game Informer 174 (October 2007): 132. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Either the secondary sources exist to create a proper article or they don't, the notability of Resident Evil collectively does not have any bearing on every component of the series. Sources make articles, assertions of this or that being important do not. The controller is not an aspect of gameplay, it's a peripheral which was sold separately, the chainsaw is not a player-controlled weapon which is what this article is about. Consensus can change, the comments above show that in the case of writing GameFAQs style game-component lists it has not. If the weapons themselves have been the subject of genuinely significant coverage then I'd be happy to switch to keep, but as it stands now the article is no more appropriate and resembles a coatrack. Someone another 19:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Secondary sources have already been added to create a proper article. As a subarticle of a notable series, the notability of Resident Evil passes along to this article of relevant information that would weigh down one of the main articles. A controller by definition is an aspect of gameplay. The article is about weapons of Resident Evil 4; it does not say "In-game weapons of Resident Evil 4" in the article's title. Thus, a chainsaw is a weapon and the controller is a means by which such weapons can be played. The weapons themselves have been covered in such notable magazines as GamePro. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It is game guide material that can be summed up within prose. The current sources only add on to the game guide aspect, so they do not help. TTN (talk) 20:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The current sources included reviews and articles and therefore do not add to the game guide aspect. The article can be improved like all articles can, but it has improved substantially since the nomination and so there is no longer a good reason to delete it. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When you show how they fit into this, I'll change my vote, but until then, this is no better than any other policy failing article. Articles that fail policies need to be removed if they cannot be improved. TTN (talk) 20:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't we have a Wikipedia:SOFIXIT? The sources that are reviews and articles are provided. You can help by assisting us in using the out of universe material from those sources to improve the article further. If nothing else, we have established notability and verfiability, i.e. enough to "save" the article. Now we just need to make it even better. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is not how this works. You need to provide real world information and it needs to be significant enough to not be able to fit within the main article stylistically. If it can be found within the sources, provide it. That is all. Stop trying to wikilawyer and just do it. TTN (talk) 20:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is exactly how this site works. Wikipedia is a community of editors who work together to improve articles. I made around twenty edits with improvements to the article, including taking a photograph, uploading it, looking through a published strategy guide, doing a dogpile.com search, and proofreading the article. Instead of simply seeing this discussion and the article in the previous condition and voting "delete", I spent several minutes working to improve the article. If you are willing to "keep" the article in some circumtance as you said above, then instead of debating with me, you should help me to improve the article with the same amount of energy and time. As the arbitration case seems to suggest, we all need to work together more and I would appreciate it if you would be so kind as to make a good faith effort to help with the improvement of this article. I set the improvement ball in motion, and would again, just appreciate some assistance refining the improvements. The onus is never on just one editor to "save" an article. Please help in this colloborative venture and if you ever need help improving a different article, please let me know as I would be happy to do what I can as well as that is how I work, i.e. doing what I can to help make things better. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The cleanup process is separate from the AfD process. You're free to show how the article can stand and convince others that it is able to stand, but to say that we should drop this whole thing because you think that the article is improvable is sort of against this process. Once you show that this is a viable topic, we'll talk about improving it. TTN (talk) 23:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have not conviningly demonstrated why you think the article is not improvable, especially considering that it has been improved considerably and that assertions of notability backed up by reliable sources have been included in the article. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article has not been improved (sources being cited!=notability being asserted), and like the hundreds of articles just like this that have been removed, it asserts no potential. It is just a game element, and should be treated as such. I realize that inclusionists like to be optimistic, but this really is the bad type of inclusionism. There is a technique called being concise, which is very necessary when writing an encyclopedia. TTN (talk) 01:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I made over twenty edits today, including adding an image, correcting grammar, adding reliable website and published game magazines as sources, asserted notability, etc. I have in effect made a serious effort that took a good amount of my free time today fulfilling the various requests you had as conditions for keeping the article. Saying it has not been improved is dishonest and ignores reality. As my dad said to me the other night, on an online encyclopedia with an astonishing amount of disk space, we do not have to be concise when we can effectively provide much more information than a regular encyclopedia. Plus, Wikipedia is not just an encyclopedia, but also a specialized encyclopedia, almanac, etc. Thus, it is not fair to only compare and contrast it with other encyclopedias and paper ones at that. We are operating on wikipedic terms, not encyclopedic, as Wikipedia, according to the Five pillars, is more than just an encyclopedia and is not a paper encyclopedia. Finally, for what it is worth, while I may be more inclusionist, then not, I do have standards and am willing to suggest deletion of articles as I did a little bit ago today. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing worth keeping here: unencyclopedic gamecruft. Eusebeus (talk) 22:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please see here and here. In any event, the article passes Wikipedia:Five pillars, in that our project "includes elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs. A specialized encyclopedia on Resident Evil 4 would include a section on its weapons. In addition to appearing in the game (which has versions on GCN, Wii, PS2, PC Windows, and MP), the weapons also appear with action figures (see [41], [42], etc.). Finally, considering that many of the participants are involved parties or participants in the arbitration case, I agree with DGG that the injunction may have some bearing here as well. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The second that someone uses policies to back why something is unencyclopedic, "I don't like it" becomes irrelevant. Nobody should like it in the first place anyways. Uh, note that the section that you quote also talks about encyclopedic standards that must be met, and it even links to WP:NOT, which is a main factor in this AfD. The main article should cover the topic within the gameplay section. That is the topic's appropriate weight (third paragraph). Anything else is completely unnecessary. The injunction does not apply here until they specifically state that all articles regarding fiction are off limits. TTN (talk) 23:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're certainly entitled to your opinion that "Nobody should like it in the first place anyways", but I think you'll find that no article on Wikipedia is "necessary" and doesn't have to be. --Pixelface (talk) 18:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, what you are in effect arguing for is a merge and redirect without deletion. As it stands, the article does meets our policies regarding encyclopedic standards. This article meets what our project is. After my last reply here, I have found an additional published source, a secondary source that focuses on the weapons of this game, and another secondary source that addresses some of the out of universe aspect of the weapons. Also, the article was only created two days ago! We should give the article a chance. There is no hurry to destroy a non-hoax article two days after it is created. Over the weekend, I added published citations to a number of history articles that have been around for much longer that had not cited material for months until I went through some of my scholarly books to add sources. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, it should be deleted. I don't know where you got that from. It does not meet anything unless you try to wikilawyer it there. We have specific policies and guidelines explaining that not everything is suitable for this site. The sooner that you accept that, the easier this will be for you. I'm not going to bother analyzing the sources because all you do is find "superficial" ones just to skim the meaning of reliable secondary sources that provide an adequate coverage of the topic (i.e. wikilawyering). You need to provide creation and reception sections that cannot be added to the main article without adding too much weight for this topic. That is the only thing you can do, so either do it or don't try to defend this. I will not be replying to you again, so you don't have to bother replying to this. TTN (talk) 01:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article should be kept and you should refrain from these assumption of bad faith accusations of wikilawyering. The article passes our policies and guidelines thanks to the many improvements that I have made over the course of today and the fact that it was only created two days ago suggests that we should give it some chance to be improved, because it is not a hoax, copyvio, or personal attack. Plus, saying that I need to add this and that, especially when I have already done so much to help this article out, is a bit odd. Instead of authoritatively telling me what I do and do not have to do, why not help me to do these things? The time spent going back and forth here could have been spent improving the article further and it is unfortunate if this has distracted from such an effort. Finally, per your own standards indicated above, it should be noted that the article now does have a reception section. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion continued here, here, and now on the Resident Evil 4 talk page. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Per the above discussion, I have continued to improve the article. Please consider its changes from its creation two days ago on February 15 versus the current version. Thank you. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's improved enough that I don't support deletion, and I'm willing to see how far this can go. Maybe merge later on, maybe not, but good job. -- Ned Scott 02:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Ned Scott, thank you for the kind word and williness to change your opinion. I greatly respect such open-mindness and view it as a sign of class and character. :) Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep following Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles' improvements.--Alf ^melmac 09:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's really still a game guide. Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles really did do a good job expanding it but it has not improved much beyond its previous state. However, it still fails WP:NOT#GUIDE and, in reality, articles like this should really start on the main article and be expanded should they outgrow the confines of the main article. Redfarmer (talk) 09:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. The sections on the chainsaw controller and Reception would fit well in the parent article. The content listing the weapons and their in-game characteristics needs to go (or, at least, to be contextualized a lot); if that disappears, there's hardly enough content left to warrant an article. Zetawoof_(ζ) 09:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, that is just not accurate as it passes that policy with flying colors as it contains a reception section and sources not found in game guides. I do appreciate the kind comment, but it has expanded considerably from its original state and again as it is less than a week old, deleting it so soon is a bit extreme and unnecessary. Articles should be given more than a few days to improve. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it has vastly improved and congrads to Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles. If more editors took the time to fix articles instead of piling on Delete votes, Wikipedia would be a better place. Ursasapien (talk) 10:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fixing an article does not necessarily make it pass WP:NOT#GUIDE, the concern of the nomination. And ad hominem attacks against editors don't help articles either (WP:CIVIL). Redfarmer (talk) 10:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It hands down passes the policy now as it contains elements (Reception, Reliable secondary sources) that are absolutely not game guide related). Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This is now just gussied up gamecruft that still fails our notability standards by a country mile. I fear that Pumpkin is wasting his time with such efforts: we still have pretensions to encyclopedic content. Eusebeus (talk) 14:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We have pretentions to encyclopedic and specialized encyclopedic content and the article now passes these pretensions by several miles. Again, please see here and here. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per nom and WP:NOT#GUIDE. --MrStalker ^(talk) 18:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please see here. Also, the article passes Guide. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article is pure gamecruft. Move to a gaming wiki or GameFAQs. --MrStalker ^(talk) 18:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, that is just not accurate. It has material on the inspiration for the controller, review commentary, etc. and concerns an incredibly notable game that appeared on several major video game systems. Moreover, it is unique in that a chainsaw controller was actually made for the game based on an in-game weapon, Capcom made a trailer for the game that focused on the weapons, Game Pro had an article that focused on the weapons, and action figures were even made of this game, which of course includes some of these weapons. Please also see Wikipedia:Cruftcruft. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okey, most of the article is non-notable. The small parts that is can be merged into the main article. --MrStalker ^(talk) 18:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, though, the article is only a few days old. I was able to make substantially improvements in one day. Wanting to delete it so soon is premature. I agree with you here, but in the case of the RE4 article, sources were found, including reputable published magazines and again, that was done in just a few good hours of concentrated reference searching. I'm currently at my apartment where I do not have all of my back issues of magazines that I have at my house. If I, or others had a chance to go through some back issues of Game Informer, Electronic Gaming Monthly, etc., more articles could potentially be found and we should at least have a couple weeks or so of an opportunity to do so. As Wikipedia:There is no deadline, editors should be given more than a couple of days to work on an article without having the article deleted and then having to start all over. Also, I still think that the majority of the article is indeed notable and that it works as a nice sub-article to the main article. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What that other AfD has to do with this I don't understand. And regarding sources, I've never complained about the sources, you can have as many reliable sources you like, it's still game guide material. Sure, the weapons of RE4 got some attention, it doesn't mean it should have its own article any more then the crowbar of Half-Life 2. The relevant parts can be merged into the main article. --MrStalker ^(talk) 21:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That other AfD is mentioned to show that sometimes a stub does not have sources and therefore even I am willing to concede that it should not be kept, which is totally different from this case. The fact that a special controller was made, toys were made, an article in Game Pro focuses entirely on the weapons, etc. is proof that the article is not game guide material no matter how many times anyone wants to repeat that falsehood and proof that the article should have its own article, moreover, because not every game ever made had a special weapon shaped controller or action figures made with the weapons. This game does have these things, which makes these particular weapons notable. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, following the improvement made by Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles — and if we must, merge into Resident Evil 4. We have articles on the BFG9000 from Doom, the gravity gun from Half-Life 2, and others in Category:Video game weapons. I think that "Wikipedia is not a game guide" is being misinterpreted by some people here. When I think of "game guide", I think of a walkthrough or strategy guide. This list is neither. This is not an instruction manual or guidebook on how to play the game. --Pixelface (talk) 18:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable, has independent refs, and possibly too large to merge into RE4 main page. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update: To address some of the lingering "concerns" above, I have re-organized the article further, added additional out of universe references, and a new section on the toys made of many of the weapons mentioned in the article. I again, therefore request that you consider the improvements from three days ago to the latest version. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per improvements made, though can I suggest reworking the subsections under "In-game weapons" into some kind of table? The content per subsection is far too sparse to use section headings. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Erik, thank you for the support and I would be willing to make a table or sorts if that would help, but I do not know how to make tables on Wikipedia. If you or anyone else have any suggestions about how to do so, or if others think that is the route we should go, please let me know, as I would be happy to learn. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I really just do not see what other people see in this. Other than the reception and the toys sections, which can be worked into the main article, the rest of the article is completely still WP:GUIDE. I really am confused and there seems to be a lot of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS going on. Redfarmer (talk) 00:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What people see is that it is an article less than four days old that has not been given much of a chance to improve. I in the matter of a couple of days managed to make all sorts of improvements to the article; imagine what more we can do if given a little more time! Nothing in the article at this point fails Guide as reliable primary and secondary sources have been added throughout the article. Ultimately, when I approach AfDs, I ask, "Will Wikipedia be better or worse off with the article under discussion?" If we keep and continue to improve the article, we have a chance to work cooperatively to catalog an aspect of human knowledge and Wikipedia has one more use as a comprehensive reference tool and one more article to interest readers and potential editors. If we delete the article, as it is not a hoax or personal attack but backed up by sources and coherently organized, then we become that much less useful as a comprehensive reference guide, maybe insult the article creator, send an "we're elitist" message to fans of Resident Evil, etc. These types of articles concerning popular culture may be mocked by late night comedians or critical blogsters, but I care far more about what actual readers look for in our project and what our contributors are willing to work on. Thus, I see no benefit to removing the article. My main argument here remains, however, that I was able to drastically improve an article less than four days old in maybe two days worth of editing. If that much can be done with the sources available to me now, we should at least give the article some time to improve further and for other editors beyond just the article creator and myself to take a stab at doing so. Regards, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All of the arguments you just gave are red herrings. Whether you have expanded the article or not is not in question. Sources are not in question (though they are mostly from game magazine guides, which reinforces my point this violates WP:NOT#GUIDE). Whether Wikipedia will be better or worse off is not in question. Whether the article will be mocked is not in question. The article was never accused of being a hoax or a personal attack. What we are considering is whether the article is within Wikipedia's policy requirements for articles. You have yet to cite any actual policy. Above, to other editors, you argued from WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. My main concern has never been addressed, and that is WP:NOT#GUIDE. Redfarmer (talk) 01:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When an article cites BradyGames, that does not make Wikipedia a game guide, just like citing CNN does not make Wikipedia a news report. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not policy. What policy does this article violate? Does this article tell readers how to beat Resident Evil 4? --Pixelface (talk) 01:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All concerns have been satisfactorily addressed with the numerous improvements. In addition to those that I made, I see another editor has significantly re-worded some of the material in the list section as well. Thus, one of the many policies that the article passes is Guide in that it is not a guide. It also passes Wikipedia:Five pillars by having notability to a real-world audience, plenty of references, and being consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning fictional topics with importance in the real world. And it also passes Wikipedia:Lists. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You keep asserting that but you have not explained why, especially when such a large portion of the article is sourced directly from a printed game guide. And an article really only need fail one policy to be deleted in some cases. Redfarmer (talk) 01:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article has a whole bunch of different sources and several sections. Fortunately, it does not fail any policies and thus has no logical reason for being deleted at this point. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article has five sections, one of which is empty, three of which are one paragraph long and can be merged into (and, in fact, would be more proper on) the main article, and the last, and largest, of which is completely a game guide. You still are not addressing the game guide concern and, in fact, are dancing all around it. Redfarmer (talk) 01:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article was created ONE DAY before you nominated it for deletion. You can at least give editors more than a day to improve the article and to flesh in the creation section. Published secondary sources, a section on reception, a section on a special controller that includes links to reviews of the controller and a comment on the inspiration for the controller, a section on toys based on the weapons, etc. are all not game guide material. There is no real concern that it is a game guide anymore. This is merely trying to win an argument as the drastic improvements done to the article in good faith to address each any every criticism of the article has more than met any expectations for an article that is merely three days old to be given at least some more time to improve further. Instead of going back and forth with me, why not help us find some additional sources to flesh in the creation section? Articles do not need to be perfect in their first week of creation. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're dancing around the issue again. Ad hominem arguments do not answer policy concerns. Obviously there is a concern if I and other editors are expressing the concern. Stating it does not exist is not going to make it go away. If you would explain in a satisfactory way why this does not fall under WP:NOT#GUIDE, I would be satisfied. P.S. You'll note this was originally a PROD and I was forced to bring it to AfD early due to an editor's erroneous interpretation of the injunction. Do your homework before you accuse me of not assuming good faith next time. Redfarmer (talk) 01:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ad hominem arguments is posting a link to Guide in every single post you make to this discussion. Every single policy concern you raised has been addressed and fulfilled in the numerous improvements to the article. The article provides the kinds of references and out of universe material that game guides generally do not contain. A non-hoax, non-copy vio, non-personal attack should not be prodded ONE MINUTE after its creation! See

21:22, 15 February 2008 Redfarmer (Talk | contribs) (3,433 bytes) (Proposing article for deletion per WP:PROD. (TW))

21:21, 15 February 2008 Jrorrim (Talk | contribs) (3,164 bytes) (Created page with list of most weapons in Resident Evil 4)

Prodding it one minute after Jrorrim created it is hardly fair to him or to anyone else who might have been able as I and the Rogue Penguin have been to improve the article. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, ad hominem attacks are when someone bypasses an argument in favor of attacking a person. And it is perfectly reasonable to place a PROD on potentially non-notable pages. Anyone can dispute a PROD and a PROD takes one week before an admin even considers deleting it. It's simply a concern on behalf of an editor that the article may not meet requirements. I've seen PRODED articles rescued many times. Does not mean that there was anything wrong with the PROD. And no, obviously every concern I have has not been addressed if I'm still asking for clarification. I can see I'm fighting a losing battle, though, at this point. Redfarmer (talk) 01:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One minute though after the article's creation? Should not an editor be given at least a little time to work on the page after its initial creation before prodding it? By the way, looking over the Guide page you have linked to, if this helps to clarify, the article passes Guide, because thanks to Rogue Penguin's rewarding of the original material, the article "has descriptions...of things," while not reading "like a how-to manual of instructions" or "advice." The article is NOT a tutorial or walkthrough. The article is obviously not a Travel guide, Internet guide, or Textbook, so there is nothing in that link that article "violates" or "fails." Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm too tired tonight to look over the policy again. I'll give it another look in the morning. For the record, yes, it is perfectly reasonable to PROD an article one minute after creation. As I said, a PROD can be contested by anyone, including the page's creator, so it does not pose a significant threat to articles which turn out to be legitimate. Redfarmer (talk) 01:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, good night then. If I seemed at all quick to dismiss the citation of Guide, it is because as I explained above, I could see nothing on the page that made sense as a legitimate criticism. Granted, these policy pages are edited constantly, so you may have been under the assumption of a previous version of that policy, but when I just checked it over again, I don't see anything in its wording that would apply negatively to this article. Again, have a nice night! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the fence Don't see the need but can't argue with the relevant bits. The chainsaw bit can go in whatever article would take it (series, maybe?), as can some of the other bits. In other words, it's mergeable but might not need it. The question is, do similar articles exist for the other games in the series? If they don't, and this is kept, it should be expanded to cover the series as a whole. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 03:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not opposed to an article on Weapons of Resident Evil. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of the "sources" are video game guides (Resident Evil 4: Bradygames Signature Series Guide, in particular). Merge the bit about the chainsaw controller into Resident Evil 4, and nuke the rest, as a game guide. --Phirazo 18:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You are not accurately describing the article or the policy. The article uses several different sources, only two of which are published game guides. It has NINE other unique sources that are not strategy guides. The article does not fail Guide in any manner whatsoever as has been explained above. The policy is against walkthroughs, how-to, and advice. The article is NOT a walkthrough, is not a how-to piece, not a travel guide, not a recipe book, not a textbook, not a tutorial, etc. There is NOTHING in Guide that this article in its revised states does not successfully pass. Rather the article states facts backed by reliable sources. Moreover, the article is a work in progress that is still less than a week old. Consider this section of another article I have contributed to. We have outlines of sections that we know sources exist for, but are in the process of using these sources to flesh in the section. So, just as the Enlightenment and Colonial Period of the Textile article not yet being fleshed in should pose no problem as it is clearly part of a work in progress, so to should the writers of this article be given more than a few days to expanded and develop the section on Creation. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The article is, in its basic form, "these are the weapons in Resident Evil 4." That is, almost by definition, game guide material. The "In game weapons" section proves this, since is only a guide on when to use specific weapons in the game. For example, "Leon's first weapon in the game is a low-damage 9mm handgun. Although unsuitable for destroying doors or shelves, it can be upgraded to increase its chance of a critical headshot by 500%." How is that not a game guide? Half the cites go to a game guide, and most of the rest go to game reviews. That shows Resident Evil 4 is notable, but not the weapons. I'd expect a game review to talk about weapons, that is their job. The only claim to notability here is the controller, but it doesn't hold up the article. It is already part of the Resident Evil 4 article, so there is no need for a merge. I see absolutely nothing here to justify an independent article. Yeah, the article is longer and prettier, but it is still an article that is fundamentally game guide material. No amount of improvement can change that. --Phirazo 02:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Again, that is a totally inaccurate impression of the overall article and a focus on one section of the article that has itself been reduced and revised. The article in its true and honest form is "these are the weapons in Resident Evil 4, their reception, their adaption as a controller and in toys, etc." THAT is be definition NOT a game guide. The in game weapons section presents a concise and well-formatted table of aspects of a notable game that are discussed using reliable published and online secondary sources in the other sections of the article. I see absolutely no good or valid reason to delete this article at this point. The incredible effort and improvement to this article justifies an independent article that is no longer fundamentally game guide material and arguing otherwise is simply inaccurate. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Game reviewers talk about weapons in games, but that doesn't make them notable. This subject isn't notable outside of game reviews. Looking over Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines, that page says that "Lists of gameplay items or concepts" are unsuitable for encylopedic articles. That is what this article is. --Phirazo 02:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Actually, if the weapons serve as the focus of article titles (as in the case of the Game Pro article), as a unique controller, as a trailer for the game that is all about the weapons, etc., then they are notable. Thus, the subject is notable outside of game reviews and notable to a real world audience around the world. Looking over our guidelines, the article provides information beyond just a list (there is no longer even a list in the article; there's a table). This article is a presentation of factual and notable information backed up by numerous secondary sources divided logically into sections that cover the reception of the weapons, their innovations from earlier games, and their influence and adaptation in the form of a special controller and toys. This information is consistent with what would be found in a specialized encyclopedia and thus per the Five pillars is suitable for Wikipedia. Finally, the internal link you cite is, according to its headline, "not set in stone." Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Game reviewers talk about gameplay elements, which is their job. As part of the coverage of gameplay elements, they talk about weapons. I see nothing to show real world notability, besides the controller, which is tangental at best. The passage about the controller does not hold up the rest article, which is still has passages like "There is a short delay before firing, making the rocket launcher impractical against faster enemies." I can see an expanded section on the controller in the Resident Evil 4 article, but an article about weapons in a game is, by definition, game guide. --Phirazo 18:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Appearance in a game that appears on multiple systems, in articles that have "weapons" in the title, with toys, with a controller, etc. all reflect real world notability. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        "Appearance in a game that appears on multiple systems," Notability is not inherited. "in articles that have "weapons" in the title," That is one article, in a game review magazine. It essentially an extension of the review. I don't see any sources outside gaming magazines that demonstrate notability. "with toys," What action figures don't come with guns these days? "with a controller, etc." The controller can adequately covered in the main Resident Evil 4 article. "all reflect real world notability." Sorry, but I disagree. The in-game weapons section in particular is a pure, shameless game guide. This is not notable. --Phirazo 03:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Actually notability is inherited, especially in the case of subarticles. There were at least two or three articles with "weapons" in the title, not just one. The toys don't merely come with one or two weapons, but multiple ones and showcase the weapons as well. The controller has been covered in so many sources that it can be adquately covered in both articles. You are wrong about it not having real world notability. There is simply no other way to say that. The in-game weapon section does not present the information in a how-to manner that a game guide would. Saying otherwise reflects a lack of knowledge of what is and is not a game guide. This is very notable. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- (Indent reset) From the article: "The TMP is a fully automatic 9mm submachine gun. It has about the same firepower as the handgun but a much higher firing rate. It can be used to hold enemies at bay, but the ammunition is rare and takes up a larger amount of inventory space than most." How is that not a game guide? That is a how-to if I've ever seen one. The article isn't better, it is just longer. --Phirazo 18:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is a statement of fact backed by reliable sources and an incredibly minor aspect of an expanded article that chronologically presents the creation of the weopons, a brief description of the weapons themselves, their reception, and finally their implementation in the form of a special controller, a poster, a trailer for the game, as part of articles and strategy books, and toys. The article is both better and longer. Suggesting otherwise at this point, when others are working to improve the article is neither accurate nor constructive. Time could be better spent working to improve this and other articles with notability to people across the real world. Finally, because I happen to have an actual game guide for the game on hand, the section on the TMP in an actual published game guide includes the price needed to buy the weapon in-game, when it is available for purchase, a detailed table of its firepower, another detailed table of its reload and still another of its capacity, i.e. not a simple prose explanation as in our article, which has none of those minute details that appear in an actual game guide. Moreover, Bradygames's guide does NOT cover the creation, reception, controller, or toys and nor does it cite any non primary sources. In fact, Bradygames does not include endnotes or footnotes like we do. Our article, by contrast contains these out of universe sections and does cite secondary sources. Therefore, comparing our article with a game guide is not reasonable; contrasting it with one is. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "It is a statement of fact" Actually, it is the advice of a game guide. "backed by reliable sources" That source is a game guide. "and an incredibly minor aspect of an expanded article" It isn't a minor aspect, since "In-game weapons" takes up most of the article (3/4, not counting the overlong quote), and especially when you consider that every weapon reads like this. The article is stitching together a review and a strategy guide, and Wikipedia is neither. --Phirazo 19:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Phirazo, if an article cites a strategy guide, that doesn't mean the article is a game guide, just like citing CNN doesn't make an article a news report. In order to give reception information, you have to cite reviews — that doesn't make the article a review. Does this article tell people how to beat Resident Evil 4? --Pixelface (talk) 19:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Those are more misrepresentations that do nothing to actually improve the article or Wikipedia in general. As Pixelface said "When an article cites BraydGames, that does not make Wikipedia a game guide, just like citing CNN does not make Wikipedia a news report." The article contains NINE elements (an introduction and sections on Creation, In-game weapons, the Chainsaw controller, Reception, Toys, References, See also, and External links). The In-game weapons table that looks nothing like the published game guide pages and that also includes some references to reviews (see the listing on the Chainsaw, for example) is one of these 9 elements of the article, or 1/9 of the article. As DGG has argued, "I'll leave it to those who work on the articles, I'm sure they'll clean it up. --I don't edit in that area. There's something which may not be clear: I have no personal knowledge about video episodes, as I almost never watch them. I do have an interest in orderly process and in general letting people who think things important write articles on them if the consensus of the community as a whole agrees they are worthy of inclusion." Well, here we have multiple editors willing to work on and continue to work on an article that is less than a week old and those willing to do so should be permitted to continue their good faith efforts. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update: The revisions to the article have continued. Please conisder the evolution from the original version versus the latest revision. After the above comments, I was able to find some more magazine references concerning the weapons, even a negative comment to balance out the Reception section. By the way, the main article approaches this material as a sub-section, as it does with characters and creatures. See here. Sincerley, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've converted the in-game weapons section into a table format. It's simple, but it works. I think it's a better presentation of in-universe information, since section headings were a little extreme. If anyone else wants to revise the table to look nicer, feel free to do so. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great job and thanks! I agree that it does look better now! :) Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update. In the latest batch of improvements to this article, Geoff B has essentially eliminated any wording that could have reasonably been misinterpreted as "game guide" and Erik has done an excellent job converting the list into a table. I have also made a couple of more grammar fixes. So, again, here is the original version, only four days old, and the new version. As a general observation, I applaud Erik, Pixelface, and The Rogue Penguin for not merely voting in this discussion, but for making good faith efforts to improve the article under discussion. I also commend Bláthnaid, Judgesurreal777, Ned Scott, and PC78 for having the integrity to acknowledge the dozens of improvements made to the article during the course of this discussion that have successfully made the article pass all of our policies and their willingness to reconsider their original stances. It is both refreshing and encouraging to see editors work together to improve an article as doing so helps fulfill our project's goal of providing the "sum of human knowledge" and will not alienate any of our readers or contributors. Bravo to all eight of you! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now~~Merge to Resident Evil 4~~ - It is much better now true, but there still does not seem like enough content, now that there is content, to merit its own whole article, so either keep building it up, or merge it into the reception section of Resident Evil 4. Great work! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! Because the article is still less than a week old and because I am currently on campus (at graduate school), I hope that I'll have some opportunity during Spring Break in two weeks to check through my back issues of magazines when I return home (I have subscriptions to Game Pro, Electronic Gaming Monthly, Game Informer, and PlayStation The Official Magazine). Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is much improved now, lets give it a chance to continue to improve and grow, it could be GA at some point. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm glad to read that! After this AfD closes, I will do my best to bring this article to GA status. Regards, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge Selectively merge info about the reception to the main article on the game. Several editors have made a valiant effort to make this look less like a game guide, and have added refs (from gaming websites, game guides, and other sources which may fail WP:RS), but it still does not appear to satisfy WP:N. Edison (talk) 18:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update. I have followed Judgesurreal777's suggestion to build this less than a week old article up even further by adding additional reliable references and more assertions of notability. Again, please compare the orginal version with the updated version. As you can see, the article in its current state demonstrates that the weapons of Resident Evil 4 have had significant coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject over the span of the past few years. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (possibly merge later, but definately don't delete). Non-trivial Reception section, who would have guessed. Good job, Grand Roi. – sgeureka ^t•c 23:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the kind words! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Just to indicate the latest batch of improvements: please compare the original version versus current version. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per discussion Gavin Scott (talk) 00:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. Bearcat (talk) 01:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Hartlepool

Written by the owner of the station by the looks of it. It is a non-notable radiostation, anyway. _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN} ^{it seems the winds have stopped...} 12:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Per this news article, it hasn't started broadcasting yet. — BillC ^talk 12:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If it has received a government licence, then it is notable. And the newspaper article is a further indication of notability. --Eastmain (talk) 00:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Need more information. It is identified by a nickname. Does it have call letters, and is there a government database with information confirming its licensing, its effecticve radiated power and the population in its clear coverage area? It is too easy to start up an internet radio station or low power neighborhood broadcasting operation with little press recognition and few listeners. Such a hobby operation would be no more notable than other hobbies such as having a ham radio station, which would actually have a far greater potential audience and would also be government licensed. One news story does not prove notability, and low power stations have not always been kept in previous AFDs like full power commercial or educational stations. Edison (talk) 04:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I added an announcement from Ofcom, the United Kingdom's broadcasting regulator, although the announcement does not provide the technical information requested by Edison. British radio stations generally identify themselves by name rather than callsign. --Eastmain (talk) 08:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 08:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 08:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The source provided by Eastmain says, "the transmitter strength will reach the whole of Hartlepool and surrounding villages, Greatham, Elwick and Hart". That means the total population of its catchment area is about 100,000. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite. A Google News search puts them at the borderline on WP:ORG per coverage over time and the broadcast license puts them over for me. They go on air permanently starting next month. It does not make sense to delete just to bring them right back. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Given the coverage in reliable secondary sources and the government licensing, this radio station is sufficiently notable. - Dravecky (talk) 13:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dravecky, looks like a subject which warrants Wikipedia coverage. RFerreira (talk) 22:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 12:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shelly burns

Entirely non-notable reference to someone's blog. Google gives zero hits for "BBC Radio Shelly" (although the existence of this article might generate a few) Ros0709 (talk) 11:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Fictional people cannot be speedily deleted but non-notable websites can! -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 11:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, I misread the article. You're absolutely right. Thanks, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 12:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 Judicial activism, no merger. Side note: I'm a jurist and frankly, the whole idea sounds like drug-induced nonsense to me – perhaps unsurprisingly so, given this theory's origins in postmodernism and in 1968. Sandstein (talk) 22:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Judicial shamanism

The only uses of this term that I can find in academic works are by Stanislovas Tomas (here and in this Google Scholar search). Note that searching for “judicial shamanism” yields no Google Book Search hits. I conclude that this topic is not notable as it is the pet theory of Stanislovas Tomas. Therefore, this article ought to be deleted. Raifʻhār Doremítzwr (talk) 11:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After reading the article, it seems like it should Redirect to Judicial activism as a special case. "Judicial shamanism" seems to be an almost vacuous term which is not widely used and doesn't need its own article. The Bearded One (talk) 07:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm… I’m not sure I agree. Judicial activism is about judges’ “usurping” extrajudicial power by ignoring precedent, ruling against laws as unconstitutional, and such; whereas judicial shamanism seems to claim that there is no difference between modern, fairly rationally-grounded legal processes and shamans’ contacting various spirits in drug-altered mental states. Perhaps my personal opinion on a theory matters little to what treatment it gets on Wikipedia, but IMHO, the quality of Tomas’s argumentation is spurious at best, seeming to rely entirely on an extremely simplistic false analogy; this would probably explain why he is the only one using the term. I still believe the article should be deleted, but maybe it can fit in as a suggestion in some related article (though judicial activism seems inappropriate). Raifʻhār Doremítzwr (talk) 13:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - As an aside, I found through the Shaman article that one of a shaman's roles was, er, judge. So modern judicial processes are based on ancient shamanic processes anyway. ~~I'm against deletion, but in favour of a severe trim.~~ JustIgnoreMe (talk) 17:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don’t think that is contested. What judicial shamanism claims is that the judicial processes of shamans and of modern court judges are not appreciably different. The rôle of impartial arbiter is ancient, but that does not mean that it has not changed radically in its form in all that time. Raifʻhār Doremítzwr (talk) 13:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Actually, you're right: despite the supposed references (which I can't be bothered to verify) there is no evidence this concept is notable. Delete. JustIgnoreMe (talk) 18:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to judicial activism page. —Qit el-Remel (talk)

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 14:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Need for Speed: Torque

Fails WP:CRYSTAL, WP:NOR and WP:N. MrStalker ^(talk) 10:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. A google search doesn't provide any information about this game. Bláthnaid 15:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it's unverifiable as there are no sources to be found. -- Whpq (talk) 19:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've nominated this article for deletion on the grounds that the existence of the game is based purely on unsubstantiated speculation. Sillygostly (talk) 01:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete because it is without outside sources, but the stub was only created two days ago. The Bearded One (talk) 08:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A google search on "need for speed torque" doesn't come up with anything, there is no sources whatsoever, thus the article is pure original research. When it was created doesn't matter. --MrStalker ^(talk) 08:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. After having looked at the article and conducting a search on dogpile.com, I was unable to make any substantial improvements to the article or locate any sources. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. MrStalker ^(talk) 08:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I can found no sources for this supposed video game. --Pixelface (talk) 19:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 15:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noisecore Freak

I delined a speedy delete on this article as notability (of sorts) is claimed however I have doubts that Noisecore Freak pass the notability requirements of WP:MUSIC so am bringing the article to AFD. nancy ^(talk) 10:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cleaned up and tagged the article instead of giving it a CSD tag since there are claims of notability. But based on the original version of the article which was full of puffery, I suspect these claims are exaggerated and sources will not be forthcoming. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 15:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- full of puffery, I love it! Travellingcari (talk) 17:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I find no evidence of RS coverage and ghits don't provide anything other than mp3 downloads and some minor discussion. Fails WP: MUSIC. Travellingcari (talk) 17:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could only find a few blog reviews, there are also COI issues. Ridernyc (talk) 19:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence of any kind of notability at all. tomasz. 21:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. Wikipedia is not a memorial. — Scientizzle 00:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

September 11th, 2001 victims list

This was prodded and Prod2's twice, the concerns are that the page violates WP:LIST and WP:MEMORIAL. Personally, I agree with the prods, however there has been enough discussion (and disagreement) on the talk page of the article to take it out of the realm of Prod, at least in my eyes. Therefore, I removed the prods to list it here. UsaSatsui (talk) 09:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete completely unverifiable, unencyclopaedic list. It is also almost impossible to read and I would question its usefulness for that reason. nancy ^(talk) 11:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I don't believe verifiability is an issue here as there were victims lists published, but it definitely violates WP:LIST and WP:MEMORIAL. Redfarmer (talk) 12:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is an unverified list of names ... the fundamental issue is that there is absolutely no reliable source attribution for the list ... anyone can add any name to it, and no one would be the wiser ... Wikipedia is better off without it. — 72.75.72.63 (talk · contribs) _{12:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)}[reply]
Delete:. Serves no encyclopaedic purpose, and there are external websites better suited to carry lists like these. — BillC ^talk 13:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per BillC. The link to the site this was copy & pasted from could be put into the main article. Lugnuts (talk) 13:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unverifiable, unnecessary, looks like a copy/paste, will never be anything more than a list of names, privileges victims of this incident over those of other incidents. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MEMORIAL, but someone should make sure that there is a link from the main article (September 11, 2001 attacks) to an outside list of victims. The concept of the article is laudable, it just doesn't work for wikipedia. I found that the main article does have a link to http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/memorial/ so delete away. The Bearded One (talk) 08:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One of the most notable principles of Wikipedia (and one that I'm glad is in place) is that "Wikipedia is not a memorial". Not everyone likes that directive, which is understandable. From the point of view of an encyclopedia that accepts contributions from the general public, however, it makes perfect sense. That notwithstanding, if anyone feels that it is an "insult" to the memory of the 9/11 victims to delete this, I think it's more of an insult to their memory to put up this "cut and paste" job, copied from one of the many websites. Do you know which one of these worked at Cantor Fitzgerald? Which ones had the misfortune of attending the Risk Waters conference at Windows on the World? Who happened to be flying that day from Boston to L.A.? Probably not. That stuff is on record in other sites that do host memorials, and do a good job at it. Mandsford (talk) 16:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a memorial. Mostlyharmless (talk) 00:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the event was notable (infamous? you pick the word). Very few people were directly involved and thus notable. People indirectly involved in the event, no (sorry). A list of deaths caused by the event would be a WP:Memorial. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 05:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.101.167 (talk • contribs)
- ...would you like to elaborate? --UsaSatsui (talk) 07:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I seem to recall looking for a website listing victims (i.e. those who murdered). No doubt it is still out there. However, like most of the rest of us, most victims were NN. A category for 9-11 victims (that is notable victims with an article) might be useful, but that is all. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 14:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Buggy Drink

Obvious hoax and borderline A1 nonsense. szyslak 09:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - hoax. Neither Google nor IMDB [43]) returned any results. Kal ^[talk] 09:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, "hoax" is not a valid speedy criterion. I wish it could be speedied, though. szyslak 09:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I had only read WP:CSD#G3, which includes "blatant and obvious hoaxes and misinformation." I didn't think of checking WP:HOAX, which says "hoaxes are generally not speedy deletion candidates." Kal ^[talk] 11:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But in this case, this is not "obscure" at all, this is a really obvious blatant hoax. CSD3 applies. Cenarium (talk) 01:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete hoaxalicious. JuJube (talk) 11:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoax. — BillC ^talk 13:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - It's the work of a serial hoax creator. Cenarium (talk) 00:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and because of this I've tagged this person's later work for speedy deletion as blatant vandalism. szyslak 04:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, after having looked over the article, as I was unable to locate any sources on dogpile.com and agree that the article looks like a hoax. Do they mean Beetlejuice? Plus, the article creator seems to be making vandalism edits: [44], [45], etc. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GMPCA

I find no evidence that this car part/system is in any way notable. The news coverage are about a wine and ghits appear to be 215 copies of the same text that start with "n the viscous coupling differentials, the shear stress of high shaft speed ....." and adding in GM doesn't help in any way either.Travellingcari (talk) 05:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Bongwarrior (talk) 09:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - searching for "progressive coupling assembly" I found a total of nine hits. It does seem to be on several GM models but there is no evidence of notability. This "article" is all of two sentences long, probably because that's all that could be found. WP is not a parts catalog. Sbowers3 (talk) 12:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted - just housekeeping. Will ^(talk) 15:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Animated (1985 film)

Obvious hoax about a fake animated film. I consider myself fairly knowledgeable about Disney, and I don't know anything about an animated feature jointly made by Disney, the BBC and the Producers Sales Organization in 1985, which brought together as many animation characters as Who Framed Roger Rabbit. Apparently this film grossed more than $300 million worldwide, which would make it by far the highest-grossing animated film of its time. szyslak 09:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - silliest hoax ever, starting with the "poster." Take this line from the end of the article, for example:

But as screenplay writer Peter S. Seaman said, "The aim was entertainment, not animation history."

Along with this article, I suggest Image:Animated1985.jpg be deleted as well. Kal ^[talk] 10:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete obvious hoax which disappointingly isn't even funny! nancy ^(talk) 10:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A hoax, and not a clever one. PC78 (talk) 11:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoaxalicious. JuJube (talk) 11:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as vandalism (by way of introducing clearly incorrect information). Obvious hoax is obvious. Zetawoof_(ζ) 13:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment tagged for speedy as obvious hoax per Zetawoof--Lenticel ^(talk) 13:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. Socks and SPAs given due weight. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced software concepts

non notable company Excariver (talk) 19:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Bongwarrior (talk) 09:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh very well. So obscure that no-one noticed this article. Delete - non-notable company. Self-promotion, original author is called "ASC-Brian" and appears to have no other contributions to the encyclopedia (at least under that name), no sales figures or employment statistics asserting leadership in an industry or importance to a local economy, not every consulting firm deserves an article, no notable innovations. I've read the article and looked at their Web site and I still don't know what they *do* or why anyone would call them. None of the principles listed on the Web site have Wikipedia articles either. --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom The page serves solely to promote the company WP:ADVERTISING. Bardcom (talk) 16:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is being developed to highlight the importance of contract management, the importance of legally binding contracts and their value to any business. Contracts are the binding relationships between a company and its customers and suppliers. The purpose of this article to offer more information on the topic of contract management, which appears to have very few contributions in Wikipedia thus far and to attract more input from other sources. Advanced Software Concepts is not a consulting firm but is one of many companies including Oracle and OpenText that offer contract management solutions. In terms of contract management innovations, ASC offers an unique, innovative and secure solution that follows international standards. Additional information is available on ASC's web site. As for sales figures, ASC is listed as one of the top 250 Canadian Software companies.ASC-Brian (talk) 18:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Have you (User:ASC-Brian) read the Wikipedia policy at Wikipedia: Conflict of Interest ? Generally self-promotion (or promotion of one's employer's products and services) is heavily frowned upon here; you can appreciate the potential for abuse. I'm also concerned about the quality of the article and Web site since neither one explains what the company does in a clear fashion. Are you lawyers? Are you selling some kind of electric filing cabinet? Can you define what you sell without using buzzwords that convey no meaning to the outsider? To be honest, none of the many Web pages that pop up in Google when I type in " contract management" make much sense to me either - I'm sure they are also offering unique, standard, international, secure "solutions". The Wikipedia article contract management is unpromising as well, since it starts off defining "contract management" as "the management of contracts". This seems unsatisfying. I wasn't aware there were as many as 250 companies selling software in Canada, but that hardly makes the company notable for an encyclopedia article. Are you into 8 figures annual sales? --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"KEEP!" I am reading the article and do not see where the company is "promoting" itself. It is written very similarily to other articles on other companies describing who they are and what they do as well as their history - seems most companies are following the same template. What part of this article is seen as being "self promoting"? Contract Management Software that has been around for a while and is gaining recognition all the time (see the AberdeenGroup research or Forrester Research papers- links are provided in the article). If people don't know about some of the latest trends, I beleive an encyclopedia should be where one can turn to to find both the history and latest trends in this information. I wasn't aware that a company had to be a 8 figure annual sales entity to be notable for an encyclopedia entry. If this is the case, we will miss a lot of good and valuable information. The Wikipedia articles on Contract Management and Contract Management Software are simply stubs, but as they have not been deleted, there is obviously a need to have this information in the encyclopedia and more importantly a need to expand on this information to better educate people about it. I think the ASC article is a good start.--JoA08 (talk) 20:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Edits to this page are the only contributions for User:JoA08. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I feel that this article is written in a neutral tone. I have compared it to many articles such as Corel or Emergis and do not see anything more notable in those articles, except for all of the negative aspects of Corel's founder as well as the company's various missteps. ASC has been listed in the top 250 Canadian Software companies for the past 3 years. This is through hard work and ingenuity and I believe there are many more software companies in Canada than you give Canadians credit for. I am also planning to contribute to the articles on Contract Management and Contract Management Software in order to provide more information that will help educate people in these areas. I also find it interesting that as someone who is interested in electrical engineering and after you had viewed ASC's web site, you brought up the terms lawyers and electric filing cabinet. This is because in terms of legally binding documents (although we are not lawyers by trade), we do in fact frequently deal with lawyers and paralegals from our clients' legal department and that as far as Contract Management is concerned, our company's solution can be viewed as an electronic filing cabinet of sorts. Bravo! ASC-Brian (talk) 21:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. A request can be left at WP:AN if the content is needed later on. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Memoirs of Hadrian (film)

Explicitly fails future film notability guidelines. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 08:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep While I agree it fails "films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should not have their own articles, unless the production itself is notable per notability guidelines. " I think the article does no harm at the moment, and will start to expand soon after release of the movie. Therefore I am not convinced that deletion at the moment is necessary. Arnoutf (talk) 10:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm its creator - sorry, on creation I thought the film was closer to release than it actually is. Rather than deletion, I suggest Redirect for now, back to Memoirs of Hadrian, with the material remerged back into there, then re-stub it out to Memoirs of Hadrian (film) when the film actually comes out. Neddyseagoon - talk 22:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing to indicate this in-production film meets the notability guidelines for unreleased films. The article can be recreated when more reliable sources are available. Darkspots (talk) 13:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFF as there has been no production news since 2005. I found a print source (Bob Flynn (2007-06-01). "The last of the steely Brits". The Independent.) that quotes Boorman (the director): At 74, he is already planning his next project, an adaptation of Marguerite Yourcenar's bestseller Memoirs of Hadrian , recreating the life of the Roman emperor. "It's a daunting prospect. The book is almost too good, but has some fascinating parallels with the present American empire," he says. The project was announced back in 2004, and there's been no recent news besides this continued intent to make the film, which is not enough. All the meager information should be placed at Memoirs of Hadrian#Film adaptation. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Geez, all these articles on films that don't even exist get a tiny bit to my nerves (even if the idea of a film on Yourcenar's book is interesting).--Aldux (talk) 22:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; that's why I think WP:NFF is a good idea because having its own article gives the illusion that, yep, it's definitely gonna be a film. If it's in a "Film adaptation" section of the article of its source material, you're more aware that it's just being developed and not guaranteed, like Shantaram. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Supersnack

Relatively new organization that doesn't seem to meet notability requirements. PHARMBOY (TALK) 14:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Of the five sources, two are from The hosting university of the organization, which means that they may not be independent enough to satisfy WP:RS. The other three sources are unavailable except for purchase, so I cannot verify what they do or do not say. If they're newspaper articles, then we need the original citation (date, issue, whatever). Even with the information we have, I do not think notability exists for this organization, and I can find no additional sources that would show notability. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 14:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 22:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G-13

Article has been tagged for cleanup repeated and apparently not improved. Remains a "weedcruft" article largely about rumored government "super-marijuana". RobertM525 (talk) 19:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep AFD is not cleanup. I did some work on the article. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well-referenced, don't see how this possibly fits criteria for deletion. Nyttend (talk) 14:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Little, if anything about this article has any basis in fact. RFerreira (talk) 22:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep a reliably sourced urban legend. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 14:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2 Girls 1 Cup

This article is a temporary internet meme that does not assert notability and will most likely not be notable in a very short period of time. LonelyMarble (talk) 05:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, none of the "references" as far as I saw are notable whatsever. Saying this article should be kept because it has references is ridiculous. The only credible reference site noted, MSNBC, has a tiny mention of the video in the article which has no basis for reference at all. This article seriously has no real claims for notability. Instead of just blindly saying "keep" here, please actually give a real reason. LonelyMarble (talk) 07:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation of Deletion Nomination. Okay I figured I should expand on why this meets criteria for deletion or merge. The first source mentioned, MSNBC [46], has a pretty trivial mention of the subject and probably doesn't meet "Significant coverage" of the general guideline. The article is about turning to the internet to find entertainment during the writer's strike and there is only a brief mention of 2 Girls 1 Cup. The second source [47] is some kind of online college newspaper, which does not really meet the "reliable" definition in the general guideline. Also the article again only briefly mentions the subject and the author even says "I suppose everyone is entitled to his or her 15 minutes. I just hope that in the case of the video "2 Girls, 1 Cup" the math makes it more like seven and a half.", which is my next argument that this article does not seem to meet Notability is not temporary ("A short burst of news reports about a topic does not necessarily constitute evidence of long-term notability.")

A brief rundown of the other sources mentioned: 3rd source [48] is newteevee.com, which I'm not exactly sure what that is but it seems like an online blog of new videos like youtube videos; doesn't seem like a significant source. 4th source [49] is a Smoking Gun article about the producer of the video in subject. However the indictment described in the article is more about this individual and his company in general, not specifically about this one video in question. 5th source [50] is online Radar magazine, okay, but it again is more about the arrest of a producer of this video, not really about the video itself. 6th source [51] is a very short non-notable source that is again more about Danilo Simoes Croce. 7th source [52] is another short article on a not very significant online community. 8th source [53] is simply an amateur video of Joe Rogan watching the video. This isn't a real source at all. 9th source [54] is MSNBC Clicked, an online blog for discussing online trends. There is a very brief mention of 2 Girls 1 Cup at the very end of the article. This source is definitely not a significant one. 10th source [55] is a short article about John Mayer's parody video. The source is chartattack.com, Chart Magazine's website. However, it says it's written by ChartAttack.com Staff which seams to clearly suggest it was never in the printed magazine. Short article dated from November 8, 2007. 11th source [56] is a link to John Mayer's blog which has no content on it at all. This seems to be a deadlink issue with that site but even if it did have the content, John Mayer's online blog doesn't seem notable enough anyway, it's not a news source. 12th source [57] is a 1 minute 30 second clip of 2 Girls 1 Cup being talked about on VH1's Best Week Ever. This might be the best source possibly establishing notability. However, the premise of Best Week Ever is it talks about short fads for the most part. A brief mention on this show does not establish long term notability.

The point of my explanation is that all of the sources provided in the article are pretty flimsy. If you think my analysis of the sources is bias you should take a look at the sources yourself. Not many of them meet the "Reliable" guideline because they are all online sources, mostly from blogs or gossip sites which are not well regulated for reliability of information. The few sources like the MSNBC one that are more reliable fail to meet the "Significant coverage" guideline as they either mention 2 Girls 1 Cup very briefly or are more about the indictment of Danilo Simoes Croce and U.S. legality of scat films. On top of the flimsy sources, I fail to see how this subject meets "Notability is not temporary" WP:N#TEMP. Most of the sources collaborate this fact saying it's simply a passing internet fad or meme. LonelyMarble (talk) 15:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By taking the time to list 12 sources and trying to refute them, you pretty much have invalidated your own point that there isn't significant coverage. These sources are more than enough to establish notability. But here is one more: On January 31, 2008, Slate magazine featured a slideshow about 2Girls1Cup reaction videos[58]. Also note that there is nothing in Wikipedia's guidelines that say print sources weigh more or are to be more highly regarded than online sources. You are really grasping at straws here. — Ocatecir ^T 22:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The point was that just because there are 12 "sources" listed in the article doesn't make them significant sources. You could find brief mentions of a lot of things in online magazines and other similar sites, but that doesn't make them all notable just because of that. There's nothing specific saying print sources are more highly regarded except for the fact that most print sources require more notability to exist and thus are inherently more notable. Also, things that are bothered to be written about in printed sources tend to be more notable because of the fact that you can easily write about anything online in blogs and the like. LonelyMarble (talk) 23:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are confusing "sources" with "references". It only takes a few sources to establish notability, which the slate article, vh1, and smoking gun clearly do. The rest are references listed to compile information to create a comprehensive article about the subject. — Ocatecir ^T 05:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite familiar with this meme, although that doesn't necessarily assert notability. However, 2girls1cup seems to be have similarity to Goatse and Tubgirl - popular/familiar enough to warrant some sort of inclusion. That being said. the existant mention in the Shock site article is more than enough in my opinion - remove this article but leave the section in Shock site. CredoFromStart ^talk 07:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with it being mentioned in the shock site article, I just don't think it warrants its own article. Just as tubgirl redirects to shock site, my recommendation would be to redirect this to shock site as well. It doesn't fit perfectly but it's close enough. LonelyMarble (talk) 07:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The article obviously asserts notability and provides many sources to support this. The nomination just seems to be a rambling I don't like it which eventually concludes that a redirect is wanted. Redirection does not require deletion and so the nomination has effectively been withdrawn. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A temporary internet fad with references to mostly internet blogs or other non-reliable websites is not notability. I would not care if this page was completely deleted or redirected, but having this discussion here that might end up in a redirect is a quick way to settle a dispute over what to do with a page. I am against censorship and support providing information that is "nonconventional". My nomination has nothing to do with not liking the content. I don't want Wikipedia to become a trash dump of non-notable brief internet fads like this page. There are plenty of other pages that could also be deleted but this is simply a place to start. LonelyMarble (talk) 08:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Notability is not temporary and notability has been established per notability guidelines (Significant coverage by multiple Reliable Secondary Sources Independent of the subject.) Fosnez (talk) 08:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Notability is not temporary and the article has more than enough sources, inclusing msnbc, print newspapers, print and online magazines, and VH1's Best Week Ever. Sourcing is extensive and more documented more than what would be expected to be the minimum. Speedy Keep because the nomination's accusations are way off mark here. — Ocatecir ^T 09:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. // Gargaj (talk) 12:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Could you guys elaborate more why this meets notability criteria as per my expanded explanation above? Especially why you say this meets Notability is not temporary because even if you argue the sources are significant, which I argue they are not, why is this article anything more than a short burst of news mentions? LonelyMarble (talk) 15:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per all above, and also Wikipedia is not paper. Waldir ^talk 14:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete has had its fifteen minutes of fame, and sources indicate that it hasn't been talked about since - compare lolcat Will ^(talk) 15:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just because there isn't a constant stream of sources being added to the article does not indicate that it isn't being talked about (regardless of the fact that notability is not temporary). A quick search on google news finds plenty of mentions within the last few days. — Ocatecir ^T 22:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at what the google news search returns though, it is all 1 word mentions of it in articles about other things not related. Soon that 1 word mention won't even happen. The point about the "notability is not temporary" is that this was never really notable in the first place. A viral video or shock site that gets brief attention is pretty much equivelent to a brief news report. We don't need an article on all of them. Quoted from WP:IINFO: "Someone or something that has been in the news for a brief period is not necessarily a suitable subject for an article in their own right." Long term notability would be the only thing that would make this article notable at all. LonelyMarble (talk) 23:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting you ignore the Slate slideshow, because Google News returns hits talking about it on the #1 and #3 hits as of February 16 and the Slate article relieves any lingering doubts about its notability as it is the very definition of coverage by a reliable third party source. Notability was established before, but with the addition of the Slate article this nomination really has no footing and should be withdrawn. — Ocatecir ^T 05:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Shock Site per my comments above CredoFromStart ^talk 16:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability is not temporary. And it was on Best Week Ever for gods sake! ViperSnake151 19:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Shock Site which is all this "article" is an example of. 24.107.154.60 (talk) 21:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, this video was everywhere. Its hard to source such a word-of-mouth phenomenon, but this is notable.-Kevinebaugh (talk) 22:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above 24.221.145.174 (talk) 22:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I keep hearing about this, but I had no idea what it was. I Googled it, and this Wikipedia article was one of the top hits on Google. Now that I know what it is, I'm glad I didn't see the actual video. Having said that, though, this article is a great resource for people who have heard about it, but don't want to suffer through the video. The video is obviously notable, as it has been talked about on network TV, and all over the internet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martylunsford (talk • contribs) 01:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not only was this video the subject of a feature article/slide show in Slate, but the article referenced the Wikipedia page as a resource for those who didn't want to actually watch the video to find out what it was about. In any case, coverage of the video in major media has been more than enough to establish notability. Kestenbaum (talk) 01:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and close! The person proposing it doesn't refference any wiki policies... then changes their mind and opts for a redirect? Sethie (talk) 01:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you read my explanation I do mention policies, but the basic point is it doesn't establish notability, see: WP:NOT#NEWS. And a redirect to me is almost the same as a deletion. This is a discussion on what to do with the page. A redirect to a "mother" article, such as shock site, is not much different than simply deleting the page. If I simply redirected the page to shock site without this nomination and discussion it would be argued and reverted endlessly. This is a way to have a formal discussion. In retrospect, maybe I should have nominated this for deletion a couple months from now because people love to include current non-encyclopedic events in Wikipedia. LonelyMarble (talk) 02:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AFD is not to be used to stimulate discussion for a redirect. That is to be done on the article's talk page. You either want it deleted or not. This is not a news story and continually referencing WP:NOT#NEWS is a red herring. The article and its sources talk about it as a phenomenon and the coverage spans over months. — Ocatecir ^T 05:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a discussion for a deletion. I just don't mind if it was redirected since there's nothing wrong with having redirect pages to mother articles. I mentioned Not News because that user asked for specific policies and that could apply here. But in my explanation I talked specifically about the policy of WP:Notability and that despite the article having sources I don't feel they are significant sources, or that this article needs its own page. About your comment above regarding the Slate article, that doesn't change what I've already been saying, brief mentions of something in a news source doesn't automatically mean it should have its own article, which is why I mentioned the Not News policy. LonelyMarble (talk) 11:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

7 pages solely about 2girls1cup and the reaction videos is not a brief mention. If you can't see that then you definitely have no credibility to be evaluating sources. — Ocatecir ^T 15:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did read all 7 pages of that Slate article. In my opinion the Slate article is more about shock sites and the disgust and reaction they cause than specifically about 2 Girls 1 Cup. It even mentions "shock site" and talks about the psychology of disgust. All this information seems better fit in the shock site article than having a separate article specifically for this one video. A lot of the sources, like this one, are using 2 Girls 1 Cup as just an example to talk more broadly about shock sites and the disgusting side of the internet, which would all be better talked about in one more notable and encyclopedic article. Please don't get defensive and attack me personally, my opinion is this article does not warrant its own page and just because it may have a couple sources mentioning it does not mean there's an automatic rule saying it should have its own article. LonelyMarble (talk) 01:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Redirect to Shock Site Jackk (talk) 08:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One of the most notable things ever on the internet. нмŵוτн τ 16:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculous hyperbole does not help here, you know. Guy (Help!) 17:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No... literally... it is one of the most well known videos from the internet. There have been so many other videos made just about this video, it's insane. Nearly everyone (in the US) has heard of this, and, if they haven't, a quick search will bring up millions (literally, millions of results). And that doesn't even include videos! I'd like to hear a counter-argument as to how & why it is not one of the most notable internet videos ever, if you disagree. нмŵוτн τ 23:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy~~ Keep - WP:N#TEMP. Tiptoety ^talk 20:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid !vote, speedy keep can't be used after editors in good standing have advocated delete. Guy (Help!) 17:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can just interpret that as a keep, then. =) нмŵוτн τ 23:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to shock site; there's a bit of noise about it, and putting it in the context of shock sites is IMO more informative and overcomes the issues with whether notoriety = notability. Guy (Help!) 17:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with shock site this is not notable outside the context of a shock site. John Hayes^talk 23:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a shock site, it is a viral video and it is notable for the reaction videos it has spawn. Redirecting it to an article in which it would not fit would not be appropriate. It has enough sources and is its own phenomenon, therefore it deserves its own article, Wikipedia is not paper. — Ocatecir ^T 03:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Found it because of this Article: [[59]]. --62.128.231.12 (talk) 01:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a good example of a new culturally important trend: "reaction video". Video of people reacting to video, so amusing as to spread virally, is a post-modern artifact. The content of the original video is important as it benchmarks cultural values, which is critically important to know what the reaction video means. Losing the original reference would be like keeping a censorship trial's transcript for posterity, but losing the censored book. What are you talking about (talk) 11:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC) What are you talking about[reply]
- Comment if this is a notable trend then write an article on reaction videos. This article is solely about the original video, and the reaction to it. John Hayes^talk 11:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP it saves having to look at the video to find out what its all about.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.141.193.2 (talk) 11:11, 19 February, 2008 (UTC)
- Comment that would still be possible if merged with and redirected to shock site. John Hayes^talk 11:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ocatecir, as notability is evident from the abundance of multiple, non-trivial references available on the subject. In this case, merging is not going to do our readers any favors and the suggestions to do so appear to be misguided, unfortunately. RFerreira (talk) 22:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you think to the future a couple months, a redirect to shock site will give a much better perspective and encylopedic article about what this video was. In a very short amount of time, or even at this present time I bet, a redirect will be more beneficial for an encylopedic article. If your argument is for what is best for readers, then a redirect is definitely best, because this specific article only has very fleeting usefulness. LonelyMarble (talk) 01:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How so? I fail to see how less information benefits the reader. How does making another article longer help the reader? If enough verified, relevant information can be used to have an article, how does redirecting it to an article on a subject that does not define it (it is not a site, it is a video) help the reader? It is not a shock site, there is more to it than just one section in another article can provide, and it has enough sources to stand on its own as an article. I don't see why this article is being held to a higher standard than any other article. It is more than adequately sourced and structured to be its own article, so I don't understand why it needs to be merged. We aren't worried about space concerns, Wikipedia is not paper. Your logic is very flawed here. — Ocatecir ^T 02:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep theres no need to delete the entry - its just info on what the site is; and trust me - a lot of people appreciate not having to go find out first hand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.94.129 (talk • contribs)
Keep I found a reference here: http://movies.go.com/diary-of-the-dead/r921504/horror A mainstream site from a mainstream reviewer. Glad I could read *about* what he was referring to, rather than watching it on YouTube. Who knows - I could be reading an article like the one above, several yearsafter its appearance on the net and wonder what certain references meant. It wouldn't be the first time Wikipedia has cleared up a reference for me who's 15 minutes of fame had long ago faded. Keep it for the day someone stumbles on a reference and it's no longer topical and easy to find any more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.60.184.182 (talk) 21:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm sorry if challenging Wikipedia's policies is somehow an out-of-bounds recourse, but I do think this is a very good opportunity to discuss this "notability versus temporality" thing. What is the point of being in a completely new media/environment, if we carry with ourselves values and beliefs that were sensible in another media, but are rather pointless in the new one? As someone has already pointed out: WIKIPEDIA IS NOT PAPER. Even more important: IT IS NOT STATIC!

Why shoud we be worried that this article will eventually become dated? When it does, it will naturally be deleted. Certainly without all the discussion we are having here. So why hurry?

A pause, here, to put the elephant over the table: I believe it is quite obvious that what propels some people to hurriedly try to erase this article is a (quite justifiable) disgust for the whole matter it covers. Most of us would probably prefer not having the "2 girls 1 cup" subject ever crossing our ways. But this is not a good reason to erase this article.

And, again, I propose this is a good occasion to discuss this "do not post articles on notorious, but temporary topics" rule. Why not?! This is one more beautiful side-benefit of Wikipedia being what it is: a collective, dynamic, ever-evolving, ever-growing, body of knowledge. Keep the article, while it is interesting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmellof (talk • contribs) 03:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge with shock site. I don't know about the rest of you...but thanks to this article, I know to stay away from the actual video. The article (or its content) should remain as a warning! —Qit el-Remel (talk) 03:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The video didn't offend me at all really, personally. Anyway, there are no disclaimers in articles on Wikipedia.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 21:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, passes WP:V enough to have a decent-sized article on with twelve sources, and Wikipedia is not censored.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 21:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Is pretty darn notable, especially in terms of shock site exposure, etc. Jmlk 1 7 22:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per various reasons above. --Merovingian (T, C) 07:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Shock site. It doesn't need an article on its own. Hail 1999 (talk) 12:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 into David Allan Coe CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 22:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nigger Fucker

Regrettably, this song does not meet our notability threshold. The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 06:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Notable and controversial song. Wikipedia should be the place where people can find encyclopedic information about such things. Entheta (talk) 13:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep-ish. Needs references though. Merkinsmum 13:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Not every song needs an article. The album where this song appears doesn't even have an article. Please keep WP:MUSIC in mind:

Most songs do not merit an article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for a prominent album or for the artist who wrote or prominently performed the song. Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. A separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; permanent stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album.

--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 14:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Coe or to the relevant album, if/when an article on it appears. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to David Allan Coe, as he is "the artist who wrote or prominently performed the song". Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. It's not notable enough to survive on its own; at most it's a bullet point on the Coe article. Xihr (talk) 23:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. —Qit el-Remel (talk) 17:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson Ellis

My speedy tag was removed. Being founder and publisher of non-notable publications does not make one notable. Corvus cornix_talk 06:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Though article has references, they don't appear to be reliable. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete References are... self-referential. Everything discussed is small-scale. Simply not notable. --Auto ^{(talk / contribs)} 06:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep References are reliable and factual. "Small-scale" is an inaccurate assumption; "non-notable" is an opinion formulated only due to unawareness. Publishes one of the largest remaining independent arts/lit/music magazines in the United States (Verbicide) with an annual circulation of 100,000 total copies. Ellis and Verbicide received national coverage in an article picked up by the AP wire in May 2007 as a vocal apponent to the the United States Postal Service rate hike (http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2007-05-24/music/sending-out-an-s-o-s/full). --Bathysphere22 (talk) 06:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Literary magazines and small presses are inherently small-scale, but that does not mean they are unimportant. We could probably justify an article on the magazine as well. DGG (talk) 03:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of reliable coverage to verify notability; some references come from closely affiliated websites (i.e not independent sources), others are only trivial mentions. Whether the magazines are notable or not is of no importance; even if they are notable, that fact alone wouldn't automatically justify the notability of the subject. --PeaceNT (talk) 13:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 - Philippe | Talk 05:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arcadia Molyneaux

This fashion model seems entirely nn. Ghits: in English, French and Spanish are of the forum, naked pics spam and occasional NSFW titles. However I find no verifiable information on this model from which to source this article. I don't find any text period, but the pics must have come from somewhere. Travellingcari (talk) 06:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 22:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now, no sources. If it is reposted with sources, then don't use the db-repost tag on it. Blast Ulna (talk) 12:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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, (and add sourcing) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christians for Biblical Equality

Non-notable org. Has many ghits, but was unable to turn up any reliable sources about the organization. Article reads like an advert. ➪HiDrNick! 05:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Mandsford (talk) 16:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And the reason is that there are reliable published sources about the organization, as demonstrated by google books search —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandsford (talk • contribs) 16:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. Mandsford (talk) 19:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The organization is significant and established. Let's add to the article instead of cutting it out entirely.SCBC (talk) 22:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 Oborniki Śląskie. Content was already merged by others. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 21:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of Oborniki Śląskie

Merge/redirect to Oborniki Śląskie, simply doesn't need an own page. Punkmorten (talk) 07:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect since neither article is all that big. Recreate if flag information becomes enough to warrant its own article. - 52 Pickup (deal) 14:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. —86.149.53.196 (talk) 10:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 Oborniki Śląskie

Coat of arms of Oborniki Śląskie

Merge/redirect to Oborniki Śląskie, simply doesn't need an own page. Punkmorten (talk) 07:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have been bold and merged the articles. please close. Fosnez (talk) 08:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I alredy merged them as well as put everything into understandable English. I copyed and pasted the articals into word, read it over and fixed it. That is the Rreason I have reverted your edit.- Colin012 (talk) 18:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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) EJF (talk) 16:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lapa Church

A good faith effort to find references has failed to find significant coverage in reliable sources in order to comply with notability. Was deleted by prod, original editor recreated article after discussion on reference requirements User talk:Jeepday/Archive 2#vandalism by admins?!, no reference have been provide or appear to be likely. Fails WP:N and WP:V. Jeepday (talk) 05:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Certainly doesn't fail WP:V. A church this old surely has many sources and documentation on it. Most likely they're in Portuguese and before the internet era. Remember, a topic fails WP:V only if it is impossible to verify, not if it isn't currently unverified. A church that's over 230 years old that also served as a lighthouse is very unique, notable and historic. The Portuguese Wikipedia article has a lot more information on the history of this church. Here's a more recent article about this church from an independent reliable source. --Oakshade (talk) 08:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - certainly it's verifiable, but it still fails to be notable. The second reference provided above pertains to the 1892 disaster, and only tangentially to the parish church. This appears to be a non-notable local church. -- BPMullins | Talk 19:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I know historic buildings are not rare in Portugal, but they are each individually probably notable; there are sure to be print sources. Care should be taken in deleting articles about possibly important local subjects deemed notable by the relevant language;s WP--not that we have to follow, or that they might not exaggerate the importance, but that we should be cautious, since notability is world-wide, and they may be in a better position to judge. DGG (talk) 03:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - 'cause I think a Church with a built in Lighthouse is notable. I also think that the picture serves a WP:V on the fact that it has a lighthouse. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 05:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. — Scientizzle 00:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bir Krsna Goswami

Non notable individual. Wikipedia is not for advertisements for particular gurus or swamis, it is a resource for notable individuals. Article has no independent third party sources. Does not meet the standards of Wikipedia:Reliable sources, notability of people, and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Ism schism (talk) 05:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 05:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 05:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable individual. Wikipedia is not for advertisements for particular gurus, it is a resource for notable individuals. Article has no independent third party sources. Does not meet the standards of Wikipedia:Reliable sources, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, or notability of people. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 05:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete How all ISKCON figures have suddenly become notabale in one day. Salih (talk) 10:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no sources --Cradel 21:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do not snow Membership in the governing body of Hare Krishna seems to be a plausible notabilty claim. Membership in the College of Cardinals would be. The situation here is somewhat borderline because Hare Krishna is a somewhat smaller religion, although still substantially greater than an isolated congregation. The individual does need a minimum of two independent sources which may possibly include religious sources. I would recommend not WP:SNOWing and giving the authors an opportunity to obtain sources. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 21:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. — Scientizzle 00:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Renminbi (band)

Fails to meet any of the WP:MUSIC notability guidelines. No sources given for any of the information in the article other than the band itself. —phh (^t/_c) 05:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 19:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -IceCreamAntisocial (talk) 02:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. dissolve ^talk 10:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Maybe should have been speedy deleted for copyvio as the article is a lift from the band's website bio. [60]. At any rate, in a brief search, I cannot find coverage that is nontrivial, nor can I find where this band meets WP:Music criteria at any level. Notability is not established. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 17:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Skewer (band)

Does not meet WP:MUSIC or WP:NOTABILITY. No third pary sources, no major record label, no hits. Delete Undeath (talk) 05:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not Notable, no third-party sources ClanCC _{(_T / ^C)} 05:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:MUSIC Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 11:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 19:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Skewer has works published in several national newspapers in physical and digital forms, and in international news/music related websites. It has also been featured in several national and international radios such as stated in the band's wiki and offical webpages. Since it verifies at least one criteria of Notability it should not be deleted. Schizomera (talk) 22:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Prove it. Please see WP:RS and WP:V. I will revisit if multiple third-party reliable sources are added. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 17:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable nobody. Seal Clubber (talk) 02:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 of the debate was delete. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NeoAxis Engine

The article about this engine was early deleted as CSD A7. [61]. This engine is still in development and unimportant/unsignificant. It has still not used in any real game or 3D-product, which were released or are under development. Alex Spade (talk) 17:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another 17:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there appears to be a bunch of blog entries but no reliable sources covering this game engine. -- Whpq (talk) 03:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jj137 (talk) 05:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable sources, was deleted with CSD A7 before (I checked log..). I used google to search for NeoAxis Engine, but most of the results is mainly blogs, or forums. ClanCC _{(_T / ^C)} 05:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 22:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optoutprescreen.com

Possible advertising, but written by an established user who states there are enough references to make it notable SGGH ^speak! 15:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it's an FTC-endorsed site and the only one of its kind. Sarsaparilla (talk) 15:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB. In addition, the sourcing is poor and I don't really see how it could possibly be expanded--as it stands the article is little more than a place to stick a link. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral until there are reliable references. --Solumeiras (talk) 16:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep but clean up the crappy grammar. Jim62sch^dissera! 23:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 18:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 04:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to be notable with the FTC backing, but is written like an advertisement. Of the sources, only one can be seen as truly reliable, the FTC site, and it's mostly in passing. The only other reliable site doesn't even mention the site, so is trivial, and the remaining two aren't reliable, being the site itself and a blog. In order for this to be kept, it would need to be neutrally re-written and provide more, and more useful, references. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 06:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note also that there have been no edits since February 1st to address the issues brought up in the nomination and statements. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 06:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the FTC is sufficient sourcing, there is in addition a Washington Post mention [62], there is a major article on Inforworld [63] -- its listed as their blog, but its actually a column by one of their usual and respected editors. the service is notable, and the article is not very spammy. DGG (talk) 03:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
REVISED Article significantly cleaned up. -- RoninBK _{T C} 12:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep this is an important topic that has much confusion around it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cnull (talk • contribs) 02:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep I have not reviewed the original article, however its present revision provides useful information in affirming the site's legitamacy and providing information to those who are interested yet hesitant about the site. Yoooder (talk) 04:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 Redrect to Dispatch (band) The nominator assertion that subject lacks references to establish notability has not been rebutted by any arguments in the debate below. Criterion 6 of WP:MUSIC justifies a redirect, content may be merged in the future if good sources can be found. As it stands, at merge at present would only clutter up the destination article with unsourced materials.--PeaceNT (talk) 13:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hermit Thrush (band)

Fails to establish any notability. No references and google search doesn't return any mainstream coverage from reliable sources. [64] Wisdom89 (talk) 05:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The band's two members seem to be somewhat notable, and one of them is also a member of Dispatch. Given that this appears to be an early and short-lived band in the career of its members, I would suggest a merge, but I'm not sure of where it could merge to. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 05:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The band's music was very different than the music played in Dispatch, and I believe it is necessary to keep them separate, as there is recorded material widely available on the internet as well as recordings of live shows. If the style was more similar to the style played in Dispatch, I would agree with a merge, however it was much different, so I believe merging it would not be the best option. 666Fox (talk) 05:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Dispatch (band). WP:MUSIC states that band which contain "at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable" are notable, but goes on to note that "it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such." Given that this band seems to be a temporary gig and is only significant in light of the fact that both members went on to play in Dispatch, the information should be included there unless it outgrows the article. The stylistic differences between the bands, while objectively interesting, does not mean that information on both can't be included in one place--I would actually argue that it adds more to the target article by illustrating Dispatch's influences. --jonny-m t 06:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some current fans of Dispatch actually found Dispatch through Hermit Thrush and Hermit Thrush recordings are still available for download online, and therefore HT is still a viable band for an article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.239.177.169 (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, would appear to meet criteria #6 of WP:MUSIC. Lankiveil ^{(complaints | disco)} 06:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Under criteria 6 it would be appropriate to create a redirect. Wisdom89 (talk) 06:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 04:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 19:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources. Fails WP:V and WP:N, so WP:MUSIC criterion 6 is irrelevant. Blast Ulna (talk) 12:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 per ArbCom, even if this is not my favorite TV show. Bearian (talk) 20:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ugly Betty (season 3)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I do not really see how WP:PROF is relevant here, but I support deletion either way. The reference provided is about a pick up from October, 2006. As such, the article would seem to be snowballing to me, besides being unverifiable. SorryGuy Talk 05:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks like crystal balling to me, and there's no actual content other than to say there will be a third season later in the year. By all means recreate once there is someting to say, though. Incidentaly, I don't see any record of this being an overturned speedy. PC78 (talk) 23:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 18:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: As part of an ongoing Arbitration case, there is a temporary injunction preventing redirection or deletion of television series episode articles. the wub "?!" 18:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The article is about a season, not an episode. There are no episodes in this season yet, anyway. The injunction doesn't seem to apply here. PC78 (talk) 19:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment The suggestion that the injunction applies to "episodes only", and not pagers for lists of episodes, reeks of WP:LAWYER. --Willow Wait (talk) 06:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and/or redirect to List of Ugly Betty episodes. The RfAr is in regard to WP:NOTABLE. This debate is about WP:CRYSTAL so I do not think that this is a violation of the temporary injunction. Wait for it… (the second season to finish airing). –thedemonhog talk • edits 18:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a third season is forthcoming and we need all the info we can get. This isn't WP:CRYSTAL or whatever, the third season is guaranteed to occur. Since the strike happened, it will be notable to see how the season will be affected because of the shortened second season. Again, I say keep. 65.83.231.100 (talk) 16:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Slight Keep - While I wished however created this wouldn't have jumped the gun, seeing as though the WGA Strike is over and ABC has announced it is picking up the third season, the article will fill in quickly over time. I would also support a temporary redirect to Season 2 article until the episode list for Season 3 is available, but based on the reference and the statement from ABC, I AM srongly against deleting this article. Makes no sense to delete this only to have it be recreated properly in a month and face more challenges and debates because of this debate. So I say keep, although raher mildly. Tippytim304 (talk) 17:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 04:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The entire article is full of unsourced info and speculation. The only thing confirmed is that there will be a 3rd season. Delete all unsourced info and the article will be a 1 sentence stub ("There will be a 3rd season of Ugly Betty"). TJ Spyke 05:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unless there's a national emergency, there will be a season 3 which will inevitably be fleshed out with detauls by UB fans. The current page acts a placeholder. Also, more details will become available before the start. Excuse My Dust (talk) 10:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. It looks like some people have short memories - we've just come off a writer's strike which cancelled several episode of House, Scrubs, Heroes, Lost, and those are just the ones I watch. Will ^(talk) 15:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only argument so far I've seen for keeping that article is that the article is a placeholder for a season of episodes that is going to happen. First off, Wikipedia is not the place for placeholders. The article can be created when the season comes out. The only information on the topic is the stars and when it supposedly will air. It only has one reference throughout the whole article. In addition, even though some say it is definite the season will air, there are arguments that can be posed (like the one above) which say otherwise. Parent5446^{(Murder me for my actions)} 20:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - What arguments can be posed? ABC and the show's production company have jointly announced that a Season 3 will happen, so what argument can exist that credibly would cast a doubt on Season3's potential? Tippytim304 (talk) 17:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Season 3 will happen and more niformation will rapidly appear. If article is deleted, it will take a vote to undelete it. We don't want to lose the potential to have a Season 3 article because of an AfD vote of delete today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.166.206.20 (talk) 02:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - ABC is defintely stated in a press release that there will be a season three and furthermore that some of the Season 2 episodes will become part of Season 3. I would support a redirect to Season 2 with relevant info there, but not a delete. We already have at least two strong sources (one being ABC itself) to say there WILL be a season 3. No delete, that's my vote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.166.206.20 (talk) 02:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It would not take a vote to recreate the article when some actual info exists. Right not the ONLY info that is confirmed is that there will be a 3rd season, everything else is unsourced speculation. TJ Spyke 23:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - It is a Wikipedia policy that once an article is deemed unencyclopedic, any attempts at recreation of the article are to be speedy deleted on sight and editor can be banned for repeated recreation (violating the AfD). AfD is not a light vote. That's I support merging the article to Season 2 since (and its sourced) that some of the ideas for Season 2 will become Season 3 due to the strike. I agree the person should not have jumped the gun and created the article, but now that it is here, why can't be try to make it more encyclopedic? Why MUST it be deleted? Just a thought.....Tippytim304 (talk) 17:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No good sources posted - Wiki shouldn't assume any are coming. If there are any later, the page can be recreated. Right now though, it doesn't meet criteria for inclusion. Alvis (talk) 06:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Doesn't crystal ball apply to events for which there is no proof it will exist and everything is speculation? 172.166.79.24 (talk) 14:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment to above two posts. If you read Wikipedia's crystall ball policy, we CAN have an article about the 2016 Olympic Games (7+ years away). Why? Because we know the games will happen and there is already revelant information. We can't have an article on 2040 Olympics because there is no proof such an event will happen (Olympics could be abolished, apocalypse could happen, whatever....If someone would have created an article about Season 4 of Ugly Betty I would whole-heartedly support a delete (and a speedy at that). But since ABC and Salma Hayek's production company have both announced the return of Season 3, we aren't speculating. We aren't "assuming there will be a season 3". We know there will be a season 3 because it was announced. Now, the article itself is very anemic and needs revelant info from the press release and Silvio Horta's interview with Entertainment Weekly. I again say we can merge the article to Season 2, with a revelant discussion about Season 3 since may of the story idea's from Season 2 that couldn't happen because of the WGA Strike will start the basis of Season 3. But a delete. No way. Keep or redirect to Season 2. That's my vote Tippytim304 (talk) 17:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is the second time I have seen AdamDeanHall cite WP:PROF in an AFD that has nothing to do with professors. The season will happen. It's fine leaving it as a stub for now. --Pixelface (talk) 04:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per current ArbCom injunction. --Willow Wait (talk) 06:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Fiction

Appears to be a short lived band that doesn't make any claim of notability neonwhite user page talk 22:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Claims to have had two records on Level Plane Records, which might be a notable label; however, I don't see any real assertations of notability among the other acts on that label. Could someone please double check all the acts on that label? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was pretty much my opinion, I can't find any evidence of them having any real hit records or notable bands on the label. I have doubts that some of the listed bands are even on that label. --neonwhite user page talk 17:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chetblong^{T C} 04:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 11:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. — Scientizzle 00:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carlie Casey

Fails WP:BIO, only hits in an engine source are sites related to TV.com and IMDB, and gossip sites. TrU Co ⁹31¹ 05:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - NN per WP:BIO. -IceCreamAntisocial (talk) 02:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete available sources don't meet the standard of WP:BIO. Darkspots (talk) 23:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 15:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Ruggieri

It *looks* impressively well sourced however the 'sources' are his own myspace and production company. The 'award' is a middle school award so I'm not certain this passes notability. 3 news hits, 2 false positives and ghits are false positives as well. I think it *asserts* notability so therefore not speedy, but I don't see evidence that he passes WP:BIO Travellingcari (talk) 03:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not appear to have notability. OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 03:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete definitely not notable. --Asmodeus Samael (talk) 04:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no notability established. jj137 (talk) 04:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable. Chetblong^{T C} 05:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. ClanCC _{(_T / ^C)} 05:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails the everything test. RFerreira (talk) 22:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. --PeaceNT (talk) 13:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Monaken Lodge

Non-notable lodge. First person narrative. Corvus cornix_talk 03:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete only news hits are about people involved, not the Lodge itself. Travellingcari (talk) 04:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep award winning group (now Cited). I tend to think Boy Scouts would find it notable. I also think it should be allowed to be around for more than 1 minute before being AfD'd. POV is an edit issue, not a reason for deletion. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 06:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 22:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ORG. We have Order of the Arrow, but we don't even have articles on scouting units below the national level, e.g. Scouting in the United States. As to the claim of notability, the awards it has won are not independent of scouting. --Dhartung | Talk 22:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you saying that WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNOTEXIST, so this shouldn't ? The medal not independant of scouting mention is intresting, should we also not mention the VC in relation to any soilders? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Exit2DOS2000 (talk • contribs) 21:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Dhartung. CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 23:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, of extremely local interest only. There is the whole rest of the Internet to post stuff like this on, you know... Blast Ulna (talk) 12:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 WP:SNOW. JERRY ^talk _contribs 01:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Floating cork paradox

Essay on time travel paradox. Clearly fails WP:NOR. No ghits. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete no ghits for "floating cork paradox" though without the quotes it does find many relevant hits about a cork floating on water waves and how it relate to time travel. This is a real paradox but if it has a name, this isn't it, hence WP:NEO/WP:SYNTH. Material is probably worth merging somewhere...why is there no Time travel paradoxes page? JJL (talk) 04:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The logic seems flawed. It's like saying that we can't delete an article because we won't then know that it exists. :) Colonel Warden (talk) 08:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Who is Matt Pfaff, the author of this thought experiment, and what are his credentials? I can't find anything at all. I suspect, however, that the author of this page, User:Mattmanp, may be related. Zetawoof_(ζ) 13:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Quite interesting, but I agree that something's wrong with the logic. Anyway, it quite fails standards for articles; the phenomenon isn't verifiable (!) and no sources to demonstrate that this is a recognised theory, such as the grandfather paradox. Nyttend (talk) 14:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all evidence suggests that this paradox exists only in the mind of Matt Pfaff, and nobody has ever heard of this guy. Pichpich (talk) 17:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Quite obviously original research.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 18:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Keep thinking about it, Matt. You're not the first person to have speculated about this, though you might be the first this year to use the analogy of a floating cork. If you read enough science fiction, you'll run across different views on whether history can or cannot be changed. There's the (Robert Silverberg?) story about "The Man Who Murdered Muhammad", about a time traveler who kept trying to go back in time to change history, and it never worked; and there's the "Assignment: Earth" theory from Star Trek that the time traveler was already part of history; on the other hand, there's Ray Bradbury's "A Sound of Thunder" example (which in this case would mean that a dopey time traveler can pick the damn cork up out of the damn river). Of course, there's also the parallel world theory which suggests that whenever you go back in time, you return to a different universe without negating the existence of the one you left; that's the main reason that I "just say no" when it comes to time travel. Mandsford (talk) 16:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as OR, non-notable, and vanity insertion. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of muslim athletics

Lacks capitalization, of course, but that could be fixed with a page move. I'm nominating this for deletion because I believe this sort of information is better organized with a category - that is, if the intersection is considered relevant at all. Picaroon (t) 02:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete should be List of Muslim athletes but better as a category; this could be a very long list. JJL (talk) 04:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I actually went ahead and struck that, because "athletes" refers to practitioners of the sport athletics (track and field), not sportspeople in general. Sportspeople in general are called - well, sportspeople. Punkmorten (talk) 07:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please don't edit my comments to reflect your absurd POV. JJL (talk) 22:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, useless, should be category. Punkmorten (talk) 07:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No reason not to have a list and a category. The list , as usual, offers greater possibilities--for adding sports, dates, nationalities. Not much developed yet, but keep and improveDGG (talk) 03:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Save it to your hard drive and work on the improvements if you think it's got great potential. However, this is a category at best, and not a very good category at that. As with the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, there are lots of athletes and lots of adherents to a major religion, and this is the intersection. Given that one's religious beliefs have no direct effect on their athleticism, this is a list of athletes who happen to believe the Muslim faith. Mandsford (talk) 16:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Probably Delete Fellowship of Christian Athletes is an organisation, as is Christians in Sport. The value of a list - and probably the only value - is that it can have red links for articles that are needed, but there are few red links here. Categories are much more useful. However, this list could contain almiost every athlete from north Africa, the Middle East, pakistan and Indonesia (to name a few). If anything is retained, it should be split into separate lists by sport;the main list shoudl be converted into a list of these lists, which should then be categorised. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 closing. Darkspots (talk) 00:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

T. Lynn Ocean

"T. Lynn Ocean" has 533 ghits.

Created by Southernfiction (talk · contribs), only edits to date.

Only sources appear to be official websites.

Not really sure if this falls under "not notable", (and I've had little experience with author/people deletions,) so I thought I'd bring it up here. OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 02:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 02:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some references. --Eastmain (talk) 03:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sigh.Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep appears to be coverage in a range of sources but as they're behind pay gate, I can't judge the sources. Article needs some non-primary sources as 2/3 are from her own website. Travellingcari (talk) 03:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note, I've just removed unencyclopedic content which the creator/subject keeps adding as it's a) unsourced and b) unencyclopedic. This is not an 'about the author' page. It's still borderline but the article needs an overhaul including the above sources to stay viable. Travellingcari (talk) 02:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 15:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Putterill

Another Liverpool related non notable player, based on WP:BIO and WP:FOOTY/Notability rules on players having to play at least one professional game John Hayes^talk 02:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 11:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, if/when he plays at professional level the article can be recreated English peasant 12:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. GiantSnowman (talk) 16:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. BanRay 20:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Struway2 (talk) 09:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 Nomination Withdrawn CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 22:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Darby

~~Another Liverpool related non notable player, based on WP:BIO and WP:FOOTY/Notability rules on players having to play at least one professional game John Hayes^talk 02:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)~~ I withdraw my nomination see comments below. John Hayes^talk 19:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 11:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteper nom, if/when he plays at professional level the article can be recreated English peasant 12:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - he has been on the bench in the Champions League. How the hell can an FA Trophy or Conference match trump this for notability? ArtVandelay13 (talk) 19:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I light of todays comments on WP:FOOTY and the fact that Uefa have a profile on him I'm withdrawing my nomination for afd. John Hayes^talk 19:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - until he actually plays. On the bench is nothing. - fchd (talk) 20:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Let me get this straight. Being a U-19 international sitting on the bench for Liverpool in a CL match is nothing. Coming off the bench in the 90th minute in a League 2 game without ever touching the ball, and getting axed from the squad the next week is something. Sebisthlm (talk) 10:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Breaking out of retirement to agree with ArtVandelay. This deletion frenzy rather than article improvement is a great example of why I just don't bother anymore. WikiGull (talk) 19:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per ArtVandelay, Jrphayes and WP:N. Sebisthlm (talk) 21:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC) Oh, and by AfD:Paul Rodgers. Might I also remind everyone that this article would clear the proposed Notability criteria p5, which is still being debated. Until that is settled, could we put AfD's like this on hold? Sebisthlm (talk) 22:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - point 5 has gathered very little support, and has not been transferred to the notability criteria as on the project subpage. - fchd (talk) 07:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - this is true, but also remember that our (self-imposed) notability rules have not been accepted by the wider community, see the comments at deletion review, and I suggest that have a profile at the UEFA site, which is a very reliable, and neutral source, in combination with the other sources cause the article to pass the criteria, which in the end is the most important bit anyway. John Hayes^talk 09:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - point 5 gathered very little support (and very little discussion) in the debate over the criteria, but it is essentially a codification of AfD:Paul Rodgers. That AfD had 18 participants and voted to keep a player in a similar situation after a lengthy debate. Also, my conclusion of the comments at deletion review is something I have been suspecting for a long time; that it's wrong of us to let the additional criteria (professional football) override the general criteria (significant coverage in reliable sources). Sebisthlm (talk) 10:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Admittedly it isn't just footballers who have been kept/deleted based on broad additional criteria. This archer, about whom so little is recorded that even his first name is a total mystery, got kept based solely on the fact that he competed at the Olympics, which is apparently all that's required for a "keep"...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - "it's wrong of us to let the additional criteria (professional football) override the general criteria" Indeed, WP:BIO is very clear that the additional criteria are not a reason to keep or delete an article in themselves, the general criteria is the most important. John Hayes^talk 11:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - has not made an appearance in a fully professional league, so fails WP:ATHLETE. Any other criteria developed by WP:FOOTY have not gained acceptance by the community yet, so are not valid. robwingfield ^«T•C» 09:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Just to clarify; are you saying that the additional criteria (professional football) in principle override the general criteria (significant coverage in reliable sources), or that the coverage isn't significant enough? Sebisthlm (talk) 11:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 - keep. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Jewel

Delete gushes like an autobiography that drops lots of names, but working with various famous people doesn't rub fame on to you - and the way it is worded never really tells you what this guy did with these big names, being in a play with XYZ could mean XYZ, a big star, was starring whilst you were an extra without a speaking part and not even sharing the stage with XYZ. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep - Yes, the article is bad and has no sources, but a quick search turns up IMDB and BBC entries (which don't establish notability, but do show it isn't a hoax), and a mention here that might be dismissed as trivial. Still, the article has only had two days and I'd like to see it tagged and get a little more time. Torc2 (talk) 01:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment - I am a little concerned about potential WP:COI and WP:AUTO issues. The editor who created this seems to be an SPA and has created a couple other articles related to this producer. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 02:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Agree with Torc2. There are reliable credentials and it has only been up for a short time.Taxman214 01:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taxman214 (talk • contribs)
Delete. Article should have been worked on in a sandbox first. This isnt half-articlepedia.--DerRichter (talk) 04:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It was the editor's first edit. Don't be so bitey. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 02:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The material present shows notability and time should be allowed for sourcing. Contrary to the above comment, we do allow articles to be developed on-wiki. In fact, the ability to do so on a cooperative basis is the very heart of the wiki principle. DGG (talk) 19:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 02:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the source produced by Torc2 is only trivial coverage, and having and IMDB and BBC profile doesn't prove notability. I could not find any additional mention of him in independant sources. It can always be recreated if someone can produce proof of notability. --Asmodeus Samael (talk) 04:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. — Scientizzle 00:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Spearing

AfDs for this article:

Another Liverpool related non notable player, based on WP:BIO and WP:FOOTY/Notability rules on players having to play at least one professional game John Hayes^talk 02:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to confirm that this is based on the new WP:FOOTY rules from 2008-02-05, hence the new nomination John Hayes^talk 02:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 11:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can delete it if you like, I have no issues. I created this page because Jay Spearing was considered by many LFC fans to be the one who was closest to making a first team appearance. But after the arrival and settling of Mascherano and Lucas, his chances of making it at LFC looks slim. although he might make it for a lower premiership or championship team like Guthrie.badkhan
- Comment I hope he does, then it can be reinstated. John Hayes^talk 13:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleteper nom, if/when he plays at professional level the article can be recreated English peasant 12:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. GiantSnowman (talk) 16:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails WP:BIO. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails WP:BIO.Heshs Umpire (talk) 16:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. BanRay 20:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Struway2 (talk) 09:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. John254 02:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marco Zanetti

Only achievement seems to have been winning a "world" championship worth just €4800 to the world champion. Just doesn't feel notable enough, although I'm open to persuasion otherwise. Article could perhaps be incorporated into a wider article about the sport? FlagSteward (talk) 01:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: The Olympic Games do not provide cash prizes, at all. The fact that a world championship doesn't have what one particular editor thinks is a large enough cash prize (by what objective criteria?) is of no relevance to anything. World Championships in three-cushion billiards have been held for over a century, and are certainly notable sporting events; the coverage of carom billiards championships in the New York Times archives is hundreds of articles, and that's not even getting into the billiard industry press (Billiards Digest, Pool & Billiard Magazine, etc.). Being a World Champion in a notable event in a notable game is plenty of notabilty. The stub needs a lot of work and was clearly written by a non-native English speaker (presumably Italian, given the article subject), but WP:AFD is not Wikipedia:Articles for improvement; a {{Cleanup}} or {{Copyedit}} tag would have been much more appropriate than an AfD. I have no idea why nominator put "world" in "scare quotes" like that, as if the article were lying about the international nature of the Union Mondiale de Billard and its UMB World Three-cushion Championship, which I have a strong feeling that the nominator did not even bother looking at before taking this stub to AfD simply because it is a stub and perhaps the nominator doesn't care about the topic or doesn't know enough about it. Lastly, why on earth would a bio article about a world champion, one among many hundreds of other cue sports pro player bio articles, from stubs to WP:GAs, be merged into a general article on the game? I cannot think of any other topic in Wikipedia in which this would be done, and if the nominator had looked at Three-cushion billiards (and related articles), it should be clear that there is no place in that article (or any related one) into which it would be appropriate to merge random player bios, not to mention that doing so would result in an game article of enormous length which, per WP:SUMMARY would necessarily be broken back out into individual bio articles, leaving us right where we started. I'm tempted to call this a speedy keep but that would imply that this is a bad faith nomination rather than just a poor choice of AfD target, and I don't see any evidence of the former. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 02:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above essay. Athlete who's competed (and won) at the highest level of his sport. Pburka (talk) 03:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As the main author of the article, I wrote as much context as I could on the basis of research. It may not be much for others but I promise it would expand overtime. FoxLad (talk) 04:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In the three cushion world—the entire sport wordwide—there are about 8 players that were long considered the best in the world, Ceulemans, Blomdahl, Caudron, Sayginer, Lee, Jaspers, maybe Jaime Bedoya, and Zanetti. As SMcCandlish details, the nominator is not familiar with what it means to even place in the UMB World Three-cushion Championship. That is the superbowl of three cushion, but even moreso because it the superbowl internationally, rather than just in one country. This article is very stubby and can be better sourced and expanded. Among three cushion players in Europe, Zanetti is a household name. The real problem in this area is how hard it is to find English language sources. This is a result of how little known the sport is in the U.S.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have added his world ranking to the article as of 2007 with a source: 7th on the planet.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There used to be a photo of this player which I added some months ago. Too bad it got removed all because it was considered replaceable. I don't it is since it's difficult to obtain pictures of this player due to the obscurity of the sport. I am merely an internet user, not a photographer.

Keep - the fact that the purse for his championship wasn't especially large is hardly a valid reason for a lack of notability. He clearly is notable. matt91486 (talk) 04:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The American View

Non-notable blog. All references are from the blog or it's "opponents" blog. Reads like an advertisement and doesn't show up in Google News. Burzmali (talk) 01:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article does not assert notability and is not sourced with secondary sources. Fosnez (talk) 09:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Anything sourced exclusively on blogs does not demonstrate notability. Nyttend (talk) 14:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep long running program; blog sources are from well-knowns such as Ed Brayton Tim Long (talk) 02:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, with the stipulation that it be edited/cleaned up. The current article does read a bit like an ad. —Qit el-Remel (talk) 17:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not known outside the blogosphere. Also, they have the blogosphere to play in. Blast Ulna (talk) 12:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. — Scientizzle 00:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Damien Plessis

Currently non notable, has yet to play a first team game for Liverpool, therefore fails WP:BIO and WP:FOOTY/Notability John Hayes^talk 01:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. John Hayes^talk 01:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteper nom, if/when he plays at professional level the article can be recreated English peasant 02:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 11:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. GiantSnowman (talk) 16:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. BanRay 20:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Struway2 (talk) 09:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. — Scientizzle 00:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OSBOUNCE

AfDed per notability. On a side note, can an article about a Script be CSDed? UzEE 01:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable, no sources. --Taxman214 02:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taxman214 (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 01:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no sources. I failed to find any information about it on Google. Kal ^[talk] 09:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The "script" described is a trivial programming exercise which has probably been independently implemented thousands of times. Just because the same visual effect appears in more than one place doesn't mean that there's a single source for the code! Zetawoof_(ζ) 13:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vindication (film)

No notability asserted. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 23:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - Doesn't even seem to have IMDB user comments. --Tikiwont (talk) 12:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite 02:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Google turned up a few useful hits ([65], [66] and [67]), and I could probably find more if I spent more than two minutes looking. Lack of user comments on IMBD is a very weak argument to delete. PC78 (talk) 08:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I might have misunderstood the release story, since the release date given in IMDB is 2006, in which case I found it remarkable that there isn't any comment, but it was not really intended as a reason for deletion which i saw more in the line of the nomination. Whether the found links to specialized such as the On-the-set report demonstrate sufficient notability is still rather doubtful to me, but I'll abstain here from a !vote. --Tikiwont (talk) 09:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Very notable in its particular niche of minority independent film making. Halfmast (talk) 08:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nominator's comments aside, the subject fails WP:MOVIE. The links above do not constitute "significant coverage", and I was unable to find any evidence of large-scale release, reviews, etc. Google News archives turn up a scant three articles. --jonny-m t 06:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 01:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Coverage in Fangoria and other media. Pburka (talk) 03:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep links above seem to constitute significant coverage. There are no reviews because the film has yet to be released. Whether, once released, it will meet WP:MOVIE's standards has yet to be determined. --Asmodeus Samael (talk) 04:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. — Scientizzle 00:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald Huth

Another non notable player. Fails WP:BIO and WP:FOOTY/Notability due to not having played a first team professional game. John Hayes^talk 01:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, if/when he plays at professional level the article can be recreated English peasant 01:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. John Hayes^talk 01:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, makes no claim to notability. Punkmorten (talk) 07:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 11:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. GiantSnowman (talk) 16:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. BanRay 20:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Struway2 (talk) 09:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 album articles. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Avon (song)

This song has never been released as a single, while the article has no references and fails to assert notability. No significant information that can't be covered in the song's respective album. PC78 (talk) 01:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons:

Redirect all but the last to Queens of the Stone Age (album), redirect the last to Songs for the Deaf. Corvus cornix_talk 03:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would be rather dissapointed in this site as a whole if these articles are deleted. Not only for it being a ludicrous rule in the first place when considering what other articles are allowed to exist. Surely only a person with extensive knowledge of the band should decide whether these articles are important enough to be kept alongside the singles and albums. I say 'extensive knowledge', as the fellow organizing this has actually made a mistake on the very page I'm discussing. Several points spread throughout the song articles contain information not found in the song's respective album, the one's created by myself especially. The only problem I see is the lack of reference, something that could be easily fixed given time and a little effort. The final point seems to be the articles importance, which shouldn't even be up for discussion when considering other album's (Of varying quality and notability) that have individual pages for every track. Red157 22:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any significant information should be covered in the article of the album, unless you can provide some evidence that the song is sufficiently notable in itself to require an article of its own. Songs that haven't been released as singles generally aren't regarded as notable, and with good reason, because there are millions of songs. WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments don't tend to carry much weight. I'd love to know how you can justify having Hispanic Impressions as a seperate article. PC78 (talk) 15:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hispanic Impressions had only one piece of information of note, but that was removed a long time ago for having no reference. Well essentially it was heresay, and I doubt any reference existed for it. Granted, I wouldn't shed a tear for that article no longer existing. I just think it'd be a shame that some of the information collected over the course of these articles is going to be lost due to lack of referance and their deletion. As obviously the job of incorporating said information into the album articles will fall on the shoulders of a QOTSA fan and not the person who deletes the individual songs. It's a flawed system as a whole when singles have priority anyways. Oh and Monsters in the Parasol would have to redirect to Rated R, not Queens of the Stone Age. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Red157 (talk • contribs) 15:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to album articles, not just redirect. Monsters in the Parasol has an image associated with it, so was it a single? If so, that can be kept, or should be AfD'd separately. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 22:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's promotional, like "The Fun Machine Took a Shit and Died". Red157 23:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It probably needs to be merged as well. A case could be made for keeping it separate if there was a non-promo release of the single. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 23:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. When he plays a pro game, gimme a call & I'll restore the page. — Scientizzle 00:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mikel San José

Not notable under WP:BIO and WP:FOOTY/Notability. He has not played a professional game. John Hayes^talk 01:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, the article can be recreated when/if he ever makes his professional debut English peasant 01:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. John Hayes^talk 01:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 11:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. GiantSnowman (talk) 16:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:N. 11800 hits on Google including e.g. AS, El Correo, Premiership latest, Footy247, Svenskafans and Goal. Sebisthlm (talk) 10:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment hits aren't everything, but admittedly some of those links look useful to meet the base criteria. Build them into the article, to establish notability and I might change my mind. John Hayes^talk 11:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Clarification - My assertion of notability was not based upon the number of hits per se, but on the the links themselves. A lot of the hits were from message boards and fan sites, which not necessarily means general notability, but there are probably more independent and reliable links in the result. Sebisthlm (talk) 14:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Heshs Umpire (talk) 13:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom BanRay 20:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Struway2 (talk) 09:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 under A7 criteria. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 02:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AeroGB

No evidence whatsoever that this company is in any way notable per WP:CORP. Very few ghits in English or French. Travellingcari (talk) 04:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 00:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7, fails to assert any bit of notability. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7 - per AeroGB's own web site, it is a new flight school - hardly notable. Sbowers3 (talk) 01:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Maestre

Fails WP:BIO TheRingess (talk) 07:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Reasonably notable: respectable list of exhibitions, press coverage, and awards [68]. Also, 20 hits on Google News, 15,700 hits on Google Web. Many of the latter are independent personal blog entries, indicating widespread familiarity with, and appreciation of, her work. Hqb (talk) 10:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 00:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Hqb, unless the nom can explain in detail how this does not meet our current biographical guidelines for inclusion. RFerreira (talk) 22:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pro Fortran

Apparently non-notable software product, not to be confused with Oracle Pro*FORTRAN. All I can find on google are press releases and stores selling it. Article is a stub with almost no content. Ham Pastrami (talk) 09:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 00:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not Notable, no third-party sources ClanCC _{(_T / ^C)} 05:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lenny Pelling

This article was nominated for speedy by an IP based on a lack of notability. I agree it may be of questionable notability, however I was not convinced that it immediately met the criteria for speedy deletion, so brought it here. SGGH ^speak! 09:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources other than own website.--DerRichter (talk) 10:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If other references are required, then I am more than happy to provide them. http://www.artsconnect.com.au/artists/illustrators/lennypelling.htm AND http://www.bookdesign.com.au/text.php?page=lenny have the artist listed, and I feel that the article establishes notability sufficently. I am surprised that it sat for so long unnoticed if there was a problem with it. I hope this evidence of other reference points lays the matter to rest. Waterloo8618:45,11 February 2008 (UTC)
Weak Delete I'd love to be saying keep, but the assertions in the article don't seem to match up to reality. In addition WP:OR for a policy based reason. Pedro : Chat 00:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 00:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 under A7 criteria; no assertion of notability. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 02:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Population 2

Fails WP:BAND; only one record released[69]. Lea (talk) 10:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 00:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hana Svobodova

Neutral nomination after Fram's prod tags were repeatedly removed from the article. Original concern: "Non notable national Miss Earth candidate. With 19 Google hits (name plus miss earth) slightly more visible than some of her colleagues, but still not passing WP:BIO." Tuvok[^T@lk/_Improve] 13:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons expressed above. The 19 Google hits for her name plus miss earth[70]. When looking for her name without the miss earth connection, we come across a lot of hits which are unrelated (eg. for a professor and a driving school). She was first runner up at the Czech Miss 2008 pageant (which earned her a spot at Miss Earth). Seems to have very limited notability so far... See also the related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nadia Neves Pereira. Fram (talk) 13:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment But 30,000 hits for "Česká Miss" "Hana Svobodova" see. I have no idea what they say. Mr Stephen (talk) 16:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

30,000? Your link only gives me 2,760 hits. May still contain good sources, of course, but quite a difference from your number. I get 30,000 when I remove the quotes from around her name though (which is incorrect), so perhaps you mixed the numbers from one search with the results from another? Fram (talk) 08:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are absoulutely right, but I assure you that link gave 30,000+ hits yesterday. Weird. Mr Stephen (talk) 11:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep and improve Logastellus (talk) 14:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, per WP:BIO, notable if "The person has received significant recognized awards or honors." I personally don't care about Miss Czech Republic, but it is a recognized award, as is Miss Earth. The article could user a bit of clean-up, too.--Sallicio ^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 09:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that she didn't win: she is first runner up. Fram (talk) 10:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 16:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per Fram, Hana Svobodova is the first runner-up, not the winner. I don't speak Czech, but from the top article on the Miss Czech website, Hana Svobodova is described as "První vicemiss Hana Svobodová;" and is listed second at the top after Eliška Bučková, the actual winner. See also [71]. At best, deserves a mention in any article about the 2008 Miss Czech pageant; no reliable sources that I could find that do anything significantly more than mention her name. (Note that the above search now returns only 953 hits.) Mango juice^talk 16:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; not notable to Americans, but notable to the Czech. Equivalent to being Miss America. --Auto ^{(talk / contribs)} 05:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. It’s true that she is the first runner-up, nevertheless, take into account that the first runner-up for Miss Czech is given the title of Miss Czech Earth, gaining all the rights to represent Czech Republic in the international Miss Earth competition; it may not be notable to most of my fellow Americans as stated by an editor above, however, to her countrymen and other countries specially the one they (delegates) visited, specific just for the competition (refer to the website), it is notable and I support the fact that it is equivalent to Miss America in her country. The delegates of Miss Czech travel annually to different countries, this year they went to Thailand for the swimsuit competition, not to mention the reality that this contest is a nationwide search, making the contest notable and of course the winners notable. --Richie Campbell (talk) 14:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge some content into the 2008 article. jon (blab) 16:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - National candidate in Miss Earth is notable. If this were the American candidate, I doubt there would even be a consideration of an AfD. --Oakshade (talk) 04:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I can assure you that many national candidates for Miss Earth are not notable and receive little to no attention. This may be different in the USA, and perhaps also in Czechia, but it is clear from Google that the attention she did receive was for Miss Czech, and not for being a Miss Earth candidate. (To give you an idea, there are only 63 distinct Google hits for the 2007 candidate from the USA in combination with "miss earth"[72]. Miss Earth candidates may be notable for other things, but they are rarely notable for their Miss Earth participation in itself. 10:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fram (talk • contribs)
Delete none of the sources are independent. Blast Ulna (talk) 12:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. — Scientizzle 00:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ferdinando Pisani

Non-notable supposed "leading expert in alternative medicine". The sources provided are not sufficient to establish notability (for instance, the source in Italian does not even claim that he would be an expert in alternative medecine, it only says "In Chile, as an example, a team guided by Dr Ferdinando Pisani is making an experimentation with some essential oils [to cure AIDS]"). In summary, this person has not been the subject of any published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. Delete. Edcolins (talk) 19:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete . I put a prod2 on this, after User:Meco's prod. A reliable disinterested user removed it, and I can not figure out why. He has already been notified. I'd wait to delete it until he has a chance to comment--maybe he saw something I & Meco & Ed didn't see. DGG (talk) 20:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral comment As I am closely involved with the subject (no secret about it), I cannot vote, but I would however like to point out that this discussion I think happened before and the article was not deleted. someone please can find that debate ? thanks. --Nando65 (talk) 21:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ferdinando, thanks for your comment. From the history of the article, it appears that a request for speedy deletion was made, but removed. Then a proposed deletion was made, but also removed. I am not aware of any previous debate on this article, sorry. --Edcolins (talk) 21:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I was referring to this bit in the history: 04:20, 30 September 2007 Jayvdb (Talk | contribs) (1,384 bytes) (deprod: reason for notability given) (undo). I presume there was a discussion leading to this action by the user, I did not follow personally at the time as I am quite new here, so any help welcome.--Nando65 (talk) 21:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I think Jayvdb meant that something in the article was, to him, sufficient to justify notability. I respect his opinion, but I do not share his view. Once an article is proposed for deletion, anyone can remove the proposal. Then, if deletion is contemplated, a debate should take place to find a consensus on whether to delete the article or to keep it. --Edcolins (talk) 22:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete . I still see not even a real assertion of notability for this person. __meco (talk) 21:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Information. Please also note the following: I am also known as a photographer, and for example I won a special prize for ethnographic photography in Peru - very local I know, but still an achievement in that field. See http://www.llli.org/Peru.html, "Premio Especial y 1º Puesto Fotografía Etnográfica, Iquitos, Al Sr. Ferdinando Pisani Massamormile ..."--Nando65 (talk) 21:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Information. I removed "leading expert", I agree it was biased. At this point, I personally think that the only grounds for the proposed deletion is "this person has not been the subject of any published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject", and I think this is not correct in light of the references contained in the article. I would also recommend users related to alternative medicine are invited to comment. Thanks in advance, --Nando65 (talk) 22:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks for the information. I have removed the tag {{article probation}} you have just added to the debate. This tag is usually added by the Arbitration Committee if appropriate. --Edcolins (talk) 22:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability not established or even asserted by the article. Beeblbrox (talk) 05:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete stub about a non-notable individual. I have been canvassed to vote for this article, but will not do so. There seems to be a very real conflict of interest issue involved in the creation of this article. Promotion (especially of oneself) is not allowed here, and I'd vote for a delete and SALT anytime as a consequence of this attempt. -- Fyslee / talk 07:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. Bearcat (talk) 01:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kenny Easterday

I'll say the same reason I proposed this article's deletion in the first place: Is he really notable enough? He has a disability and is on the Springer show - hardly good qualifacations, in my opinion. Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 20:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep seems to be rs coverage that might eke out a pass of WP:BIO Travellingcari (talk) 22:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep hard to quantify exactly why, but this article passes my sniff test, The subject has a movie that was loosley written about him, he playes a fictionalized version of himself in that movie, he regularly appears on television. IMDB says his starmeter has recently gone up 35%... He has been rated in the bottom 3% of notable actors of all time... but that's at least on the list.[73] 13,800 ghits. I dunno. I say keep. JERRY ^talk _contribs 04:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know for sure, but I don't think IMDb is a reliable source on Wikipedia. That movie doesn't even have a article about it on Wikipedia, and even this article doesn't seem to be sure on whether or not it is a cult movie. Hardly notable. All he does on Springer is, really, walk up while people are talking (Which I have never understood why he does it). The security guards are more notable then he is, I think, and they don't have an article on them. I woudln't really call him an actor, either. Quite frankly, he is just a man with a disability who got a few breaks because of it. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 05:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 48: / Line 48: @@
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sól (band)}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacob Calle}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walker Pond}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monaco Film Premiere}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Momentum Games}}