Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 October 20: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 20:56, 20 October 2008

< October 19	October 21 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was redirect to List of The Grim Adventures of Billy & Mandy episodes. content is under the merge if anyone wants to use it. TravellingCari 02:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Underfist: Halloween Bash

Non-notable episode, no sources found. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: to List of The Grim Adventures of Billy & Mandy episodes. I didn't vote merge because the plot is done horribly. It reads like an elementary school student wrote it. Schuym1 (talk) 21:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of The Grim Adventures of Billy & Mandy episodes, there is no way this deserves its own article. The issues are really that it's little more than a plot synopsis and any real content exist in the lead and the infobox. treelo _radda 21:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It deserves it's own article, it can be the pilot for a possible series, if this article is deleted, we have to delete The Grim Adventures of The Kids Next Door.

Comment So, you're using both WP:WAX and WP:CRYSTAL to justify why it should stay? More reason to delete then. This special is non-notable and isn't signifigant enough yet or may never be to justify one. treelo _radda 23:02, 21 October 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. TravellingCari 02:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Augmented reality links

Neologism without indication of widespread use, no reliable sources. Was prodded, prod removed by author (who has a possible conflict of interest, working as an intern for the company that invented the concept) with comment: This is new technology that has only recently been revealed to the press. I will be adding references as they appear. Non-notable (yet). Huon (talk) 20:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 23:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NEOLOGISM.Nrswanson (talk) 00:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability not established, conflict of interest. --Ckatz^chat _spy 16:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If you have to wait for references to appear before adding them, then the subject is clearly not notable enough. --Fugu Alienking (talk) 05:07, 23 October 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. Nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rakasiya

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (Geographic locations) Option Two and/or needs very drastic improvements per Option Three. In addition, sources are not cited and I cannot find the place through Google at all. Finally, at least half of the article is in a different language. DARTH PANDA^talk 20:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. as per Nom. --GDibyendu (talk) 06:27, 22 October 2008 (UTC)Keep as location reference has been added. --GDibyendu (talk) 18:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a poorly written essay that's sure to be rejected as a policy or guideline is no substitute for an argument. Foreign language material can be transfered to the appropriate language version and probably moved to talk for now. Without it, it still passes the usual standards of inclusion. WilyD 13:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Can you confirm that this location in fact exists? Google turned up nothing for me aside from the non-English page that was copypasted into Rakasiya. DARTH PANDA^talk 13:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It does exist: searching with the census code brings up Raksiya - alternate (mis)spellings are quite common in India. For example this is from some governmental/regional agency, this pdf-map from another gov site has Raksiya. There's few more tidbits, too. Probably at least spellings Rakasiya/Rakasija/Raksiya/Raksija are used, possibly even more. In case you are interested, here's "translation" of the text in wikimapia :D – Sadalmelik ☎ 20:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Digging around, I did find reference to it in two Indian Government publications, though one only confirmed that some road went there, and the other was equally as not terribly useful. It's certainly real, though. Wily D 21:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per verification provided by Sadalmelik. Nyttend (talk) 00:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Verifiable places are notable and Wp:N(Geographic locations) should be deleted. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 07:48, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
AfD Withdrawn. Verifiable location with potential for growth. Sorry for the trouble. DARTH PANDA^talk 18:52, 27 October 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. TravellingCari 02:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oligo Primer Analysis Software

Non-notable product and has POV issues (reads like advert). Delete. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 20:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Already speedied once (by me), and creator warned about COI issues. Creator's account is being blocked as a spam-only account. AKRadecki^Speaketh 20:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteper nom and WP:COI. Themfromspace (talk) 04:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 07:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 07:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-consumer software with very little context and no showing of importance: Initially, it was a tool for finding and analyzing hybridization probes, sequencing and PCR primers. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - So far, it fails to establish notability. -- Loukinho (talk) 23:33, 21 October 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 NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good Thing Going

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (albums). I don't think it should be merged because there is little info to merge and Rhonda Vincent just doesn't have a good spot to fit a merge. DARTH PANDA^talk 20:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Huh? Wikipedia:Notability (albums) is inactive, having been superceded by WP:NALBUMS. And this one plainly qualifies. A few reviews: Associated Press[1], PopMatters[2], Dallas Morning News[3], New York Times[4], National Public Radio[5], Columbus Dispatch[6], etc. Next time, please do some research before nominating. -12.68.8.18 (talk) 20:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Response - Aww, jeesh, I clicked the wrong link. Ah well, I still think it fails because there is simply no information in the article that is new information aside from a track listing. I may be wrong, but to quote WP:NALBUMS, "Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting" which makes me think that it should be merged. The only problem there (which is one I noted in my original nomination) is that merging would make the Rhonda Vincent page quite ugly, which is why I nominated this for deletion. DARTH PANDA^talk 20:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Personally, I think it should be expanded, using some of the material I provided. From WP:NOTE, a guideline: "When discussing whether to delete or merge an article due to non-notability, the discussion should focus not only on whether notability is established in the article, but on what the probability is that notability could be established. If it is likely that independent sources could be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate unless active effort has been made to find these sources. For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort. If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself..." -12.68.8.18 (talk) 20:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I should probably also note, since it hasn't been mentioned yet, that the album in question was #1 on Billboard's US bluegrass chart for seven weeks[7]. -12.68.8.18 (talk) 21:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Haha, I'm voting keep now, as per 12.68.8.18. Sorry about this... DARTH PANDA^talk 21:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. The IP turned up several sources which can easily add to the article. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:21, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would think an album that went to #1 on a Billboard chart would be notable. --Caldorwards4 (talk) 21:27, 20 October 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 Tim Vickers (talk) 21:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rahmat Samii

Vanispamcruftisement created by the subject's child, the single-purpose account Ali4nia (talk · contribs), who contested the WP:PROD ... absolutely no reliable sources to verify the WP:BIO criteria ... also possible copyright violation of subject's website. — The Bipolar Anon-IP Gnome (talk) 20:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not the place to upload CVs/resumes. Also, the copyright is unclear. Narayanese (talk) 22:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable, zero hits on Google Scholar and Pubmed. Possibly hoax. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 22:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability problems aside, none of the info in the article appears verifiable. In particular, all the googlescholar hits[8] for "Rahmat Samii" appear to be not for a physician but for an engineer named Yahya Rahmat-Samii (who is a professor at UCLA and who does appear to be notable). Nsk92 (talk) 23:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete That about the engineer reminds me that I looked into it a few months ago when it was prodded. As I recall, he exists and wrote the book on AIDS published by FRISON-ROCHE, but that took some work to find, and there is very little other information. The engineer is notable.John Z (talk) 00:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete — strongly and clearly fails WP:NOT; this is not the place for resumes. Forecast calls for WP:SNOW in the future. MuZemike (talk) 03:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per all above, nothing to add. --triwbe (talk) 07:08, 21 October 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 02:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Angus(sketchshow)

Notability claimed but not asserted. A {{prod}} tag was rejected, so AfD is the next step. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear WikiDan

I would say that Angus meets the third criteria:
The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster

I know that it is a short description so far, but I have not got alot of information about the show yet. I'm not the creator of the show, but I want to make a page, where information about the show can be gathered, so that fans of the show can read about the show, the charaters in the show and so on.
Please, don't delete the page.
I just have to get it out to the fans, so they can contribute with additional information about the show.
Thanks in advance
Alaunus —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alaunus (talk • contribs) 21:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Alaunus, unfortunately YouTube does NOT qualify as a respected medium that is independent of the creators. YouTube will blindly publish anyone's videos as long as they don't violate the terms of agreement. Anyone can put any junk they want up there, and get 0 hits, but it's still there. This is NOT what is meant by the WP:web guidelines. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 00:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails all Wikipedia:Notability (web) criteria. Article is based on three amateur videos uploaded to YouTube. YouTube is not considered a respected and independent distributor, but rather a trivial distribution on a hosting website. I'm surprised this wasn't a WP:CSD. — CactusWriter | ^needles 22:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per CactusWriter. I also question why it wasn't a Speedy Delete. DARTH PANDA^talk 00:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For editors who wonder why the article wasn't a speedy delete: the original article claimed notability, which is, in itself, sufficient to avoid speedy deletion (see WP:CSD). The alternative in such cases is to propose deletion using a {{prod}} tag, which was done. However, once this tag was deleted, the only option was a full-blown AfD discussion. Gotta play by the rules. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 04:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. You are quite right. — CactusWriter | ^needles 07:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What should I do to the article if I want to avoid it to be deleted? And how come all these persons, famous BECAUSE of YouTube, have a wikipedia site? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_YouTube_celebrities — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alaunus (talk • contribs)
- Comment - First, please note that pointing to any other articles on WP is not a valid argument concerning the merits of this one (see OTHERSTUFF). However, concerning those people listed as YouTube personalities (for example: Ben Going or Chris Crocker), they passed notability, not for simply posting videos, but rather for garnering significant coverage in national press (see the list of references on their pages. Because their videos received tens of thousands of views, they were discussed by independent sources. It is the outside discussion which gives them notability. — CactusWriter | ^needles 15:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I see no coverage of this set of youtube clips that would establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 16:19, 23 October 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 02:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Net2Phone

No references to notability. Sure, they sued Skype but that hardly a major claim of notability (note, THAT info is actually missing in the article...) -- ErnestVoice ^{(User) (Talk)} 19:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. Net2Phone was an early and leading player in VoIP in the early 2000s. Continuous RS coverage going back to 1999 is easily found with a Google News search. • Gene93k (talk) 21:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep one of the major companies at the time, and notability is not lost. DGG (talk)
Keep. It definately needs expanding, but the company itself is notable as an early player. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a quick perusal of Google New results show a plethora of articles about the company over a significant period of time. There is no doubt the article needs improvement but the amount of coverage indicates notability is easily met. -- Whpq (talk) 16:21, 23 October 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 Speedied per original author's request (CSD G7). — Huntster (t • @ • c) 06:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Legend of Zelda:The Shadowgazer

Upcoming fanmade software without reliable sources to demonstrate notability. PROD declined by creator, who added notability assertion of "won the 'Best of the Show' in the Nintendo Fan Game Convention of 2007." No evidence that the Nintendo Fan Game Convention is itself notable, or that awards from it confer notability. gnfnrf (talk) 19:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Author has requested deletion on talk page, so I have tagged for speedy deletion under CSD G7. gnfnrf (talk) 00:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nn fan-made game. Stifle (talk) 20:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn game with no nontrivial hits on Google and Google News. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 20:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MuZemike (talk) 21:27, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fan-made have problems of notability for Wikipedia. Show reliable third party sources or deletion. Zero Kitsune (talk) 21:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fangame. Fangames without substantial notability are not notable. JuJube (talk) 01:31, 21 October 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. Protonk (talk) 06:07, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Tale of Egypt

Appears to be a non-notable, straight to video cartoon; I couldn't find anything like substantial coverage on Google. Prod removed without comment. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 19:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its not on google but it is on the internet movie database. User:Jet556 —Preceding undated comment was added at 00:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, but even its IMDB entry does little more than confirms that it exists. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 06:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (films).Nrswanson (talk) 00:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 21:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I use to own a copy. User:Jet556 —Preceding undated comment was added at 00:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Comment - I cannot see how owning a copy would be in any way relevant to this discussion. DARTH PANDA^talk 00:47, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources found. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 02:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I use my memory I can put the plot in. User:Jet556 —Preceding undated comment was added at 02:15, 25 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Comment - If notability cannot be established, inserting a plot will not help the article. Please see Wikipedia:Notability (films) (as per Nrswanson). DARTH PANDA^talk 02:24, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant coverage, indeed no coverage, for an article that shouldn't be. And prod removing is just not good. Drmies (talk)
Comment If it's really by Peter S. Beagle, as IMDB says, that's at least interesting (but I can't turn up anything about it): there seems to be some work "The Story of Moses" 1996 attributed to him in other encyclopedias. N p holmes (talk) 09:15, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No reliable sources that show notability. Fails WP:NF. Schuym1 (talk) 13:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its made by a minor animation studio so of course there is not much information. User:Jet556 —Preceding undated comment was added at 14:12, 25 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]

That is why there shouldn't be an article on it. Schuym1 (talk) 14:20, 25 October 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. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 05:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Råshön wind farm

The only reliable source that I can find is the official site. Schuym1 (talk) 23:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Small, non-notable wind farm, as are many in List of wind farms in Sweden. Johnfos (talk) 00:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Offerdal. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sweden does not have very large wind industry. On global terms, the plant is small, but it is quite standard for Sweden due to a tendency to size them to 10 MW. Notable enough by virtue of context. --Adamrush (talk) 01:57, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That does not make the article pass any of the guidelines or policies. Schuym1 (talk) 02:02, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Small wind farms can be included in List of wind farms in Sweden, but should not have an article of their own. Where would we be if Wikipedia tried to have a separate article on every 10 MW wind farm? Things would get out of hand very quickly. Johnfos (talk) 02:07, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's just the thing. The list found in List of wind farms in Sweden shows pretty clearly that it won't get out of hand, because there are simply so few fish in the pond. All of these farms you have tagged have been notable enough to be featured in print media (Svenska dagbladet, Ny Teknik) and on the Internet. You need not worry that the articlespace will be flooded with tens of thousands of Swedish wind farm articles, disrupting Wikipedia's intended role as a Pokémon encyclopedia. --Adamrush (talk) 13:43, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. The tagged wind farms are notable enough to be on the list but not to have a separate article. A reference or two should be included in their listing, to support their inclusion. I say again that things will quickly get out of hand if we try to have an article on every small wind farm around the world. There literally are thousands. Johnfos (talk) 18:22, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Adamrush makes a convincing argument, and there's no real reason to delete. Fumoses (talk) 23:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes there is. It doesn't pass WP:NOTABILITY which is a policy. Schuym1 (talk) 23:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 19:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per Johnfos' observation. Ecoleetage (talk) 04:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 04:34, 21 October 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. The last comment casts doubt on the "keep" opinions. Sandstein 20:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Westfort Rangers

Violation of notability requirements. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 19:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. --neon white talk 20:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 21:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 21:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 02:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hey, at least it doesn't claim notability. Drmies (talk) 02:19, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:N. [9][10], [11]. The multiple part is vaguely questionable. It might not be something we want, but the letter of notability (the only reason given for deletion) appears to be met... Merging the various team in the league into one page is probably the best in reality, but that's an editorial call. Hobit (talk) 02:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Every single one of those is about as trivial as it comes. --Smashville^talk 14:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per the above, independent verification of notability seems to exist. Wily D 10:58, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Peewee teams are notable when they are mentioned in the local newspaper? For those unfamiliar with hockey, peewee is for players aged 11–12. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 20:01, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When there are articles from multiple independent reliable sources that are primarily about the topic, then yes, by definition it's notable. IAR is a real option here. But to answer your question, yes those three articles meet the letter of GNG quite nicely. Hobit (talk) 12:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would be very interested in learning how declaring every little league baseball team, every peewee, atom and tyke hockey team, every youth league basketball team, etc. notable improves the quality of this encyclopedia. Reso lute 14:41, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely...if these are declared notable...then what isn't notable? --Smashville^talk 15:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Twas Now. This is a children's community team. Never mind the fact that this is basically a speedy deletion candidate for not even attempting to assert notability. Reso lute 21:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seriously? It's a kids hockey team...Little League baseball teams are not notable and peewee hockey teams are not notable. Given the nature of such teams, they probably won't even exist once the season is over...Having results printed in the local paper is not evidence of notability. Lots of local papers in small towns print stories about rec league teams...--Smashville^talk 04:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per notability guidelines, this is presumed notable. The above !votes are largely cases of IDONTLIKEIT or "Not notable" !votes and should be largely discounted by the closer. Hobit (talk) 12:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: One could just as readily discount yours for being completely vague as to what notability guidelines this team meets and why? For my part, I'll stand by WP:ORG's guidelines, which hold that "The source's audience must also be considered; evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability, whereas attention solely by local media is not an indication of notability." For pity's sake, are you genuinely advocating that a twelve year old youth hockey team is notable because the local paper has a weekly article about the peewee leagues, and every now and then this crew's number comes up? RGTraynor 13:41, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first part of WP:ORG reads: "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. " Your point about audience target is well made, but I will point out that our most recent survey indicated that people felt that you don't need to meet both the GNG and the SNG. I don't see anything in the GNG about local sources. As I mentioned above, I've no problems with merging this article into an article on the league or even something larger. But as far as I can tell, this meets the letter and intent of the GNG. As far as what part of the guidelines this meets, the articles establish significant coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources. I think my argument is pretty plain and not a case of "ILIKEIT" or "plainly notable". Hobit (talk) 16:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But it is not the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. The sources given are passing mentions for results in local papers. Smashville^talk 17:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking at a table of results indicating the only statement that met consensus was "SNGs can outline sources that assert notability." I see no attempt to revoke WP:ORG, never mind a consensus to do so. RGTraynor 17:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And failed was "Articles must meet the GNG and SNGs" Hobit (talk) 17:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your point being? Only one of the myriad statements there obtained consensus. So far black-letter policy or guideline has not budged a jot. RGTraynor 18:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is a pretty clear case where common sense should be used. Instead of throwing around blue links, just use your head: little league sports teams are not notable. This team isn't even a top tier peewee team (which still wouldn't be notable)...it's a team in the second tier of a 3 tier system in a league in a town of a 100,000 people. --Smashville^talk 14:15, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point if we were trying to meet the dictionary definition of notable (famous etc.). But that's NOT what notable means here. "Notability is distinct from "fame," "importance," or "popularity," although these may positively correlate with it. A topic is presumed to be sufficiently notable to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below, or if it meets an accepted subject-specific standard listed in the table at the right." (from WP:N). We live on sources. IAR is of course an option here. But if you want notability to have to do with "fame," "importance," or "popularity," you should take it up at WP:N, not here. Hobit (talk) 16:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it is not notable. It does not meet notability guidelines. You have provided no evidence of notability other than passing mentions on results pages of a local paper. Those are not "significant coverage". The fact that the team exists does not make it notable. It is a rec league team for 11-12 year olds...it's not even the highest division. Quoting the guideline doesn't make it notable. You haven't shown how it actually meets WP:ORG. --Smashville^talk 17:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Number one, I claim that the GNG is all that needs to be met. As linked to above, that seems to have consensus. Number two, calling these passing mentions is a pretty rough argument as two of the articles are largely about the team and one is significantly about the team. Hobit (talk) 17:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, the article at this point doesn't even meet A7...how can it possibly meet WP:ORG? --Smashville^talk 17:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I can't believe we are having this much debate and discussion over an article that's entire content consists of: "The Westfort Rangers are a Thunder Bay-based hockey team." --Smashville^talk 17:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remember, we are debating if the topic meets the requirements for inclusion, not the article. I understand your frustration, I often come at it from the other end. People argue that some major topic doesn't warrant an article because of a lack of RS (even if there are 100 (litterally) primary sources on the topic and was on the NYT bestseller list) and that it is RS, not "fame" we are looking for. But that isn't want we've chosen to do (and I largely think rightly). Rather, if multiple independent sources cover it, we cover it. If they don't, we don't. WP:ORG has good arguments that the sources aren't enough, but this idea of "local sources" only exists there as far as I can tell. Not in the GNG or any other SNG... Hobit (talk) 17:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What sources? --Smashville^talk 18:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'll be done here at this point. Let me summarize my arguments. I believe that there are 3 non-trivial, reliable, independent sources on the topic. I believe that it thus meets GNG, though WP:ORG might not be met as "local" sources are considered less relevant under its guidance. I believe that meeting the GNG, but not the SNG is still a reason for inclusion per the survey presented in the WP:N talk page and general consensus about notability. And I think arguments about it being "just" a 11-12 year old league aren't relevant per the GNG's comments on fame, importance and popularity. Arguments that the sources are trivial are of course on-point, though I don't see how that can be true when the article is long and mainly about the team in question (in 2 of the 3 cases). I also think IAR might be a valid plan here, but if we are going to claim that stuff like this is generally not notable (and not just this case) then someone should go back to the GNG and address the idea of "local" or whatever reason they have for thinking that this kind of topic doesn't belong here. Thanks, Hobit (talk) 18:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, how can it meet notability guidlines when it doesn't even meet A7? Also, the team is the subject of zero of the three articles provided. The article has one sentence - "The Westfort Rangers are a Thunder Bay-based hockey team." - and none of the sources are even able to support that. Were they a team at one point? Yes...Are they a team now? What kind of team are they? One article refers to their results as the results of a peewee team, but another says the kids are 6-7... --Smashville^talk 18:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't believe there is this much discussion about something with so much common sense. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coniston Flames for a similar situation. This is absolutely rediculous. Completely non-notable. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 16:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I just looked again...the so-called "sources" refer to three separate teams...the first refers to a 6-7 year old team, the second to a peewee (11-12 year old) team and the third is an atom (9-10 year old) team. --Smashville^talk 16:40, 28 October 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre Bossier Mall

Non-notable mall, no sources found. And that Service Merchandise is still vacant 10 years later? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:57, 20 October 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 • HELP)} 18:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral While the regular Google shows nothing nontrivial, this Google News search shows some court cases. I cannot view them, so I don't know it will constitute the mall as notable. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 20:23, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep as there are sources available both directly on point ([12], [13], [14]) and strongly related ([15], [16], [17]) sufficient to build an interesting article. - Dravecky (talk) 21:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sources available are sufficient to establish notability, leaving us with no criterion for deletion. Wily D 13:29, 22 October 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. 山本一郎 (会話) 06:29, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Velvet Trench Vibes

Appropriate notability is extremely limited if existent at all -- internet sources overwhelmingly consist of user-contributed content, such as YouTube, MySpace, Facebook and blogs. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 18:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

adding non album by the artist

Delete both fail to assert any notability. --neon white talk 20:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article needs more detail, but I find the case for deletion made here to be fairly substanceless. Keep it and improve it - it's what Wikipedia's for, anyway.Fumoses (talk) 23:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How so? It's a clear violation of the Wikipedia requirement for reliable sources. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 02:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Notability can be established (though it has not been). I would have to suggest a delete for the album though. Delete per nom. A second search of Google proved that I misjudged sources that I found. DARTH PANDA^talk 00:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability cannot be established, as established by the assertions above that public forum reveals merely user-contributed content. Saying that it can be established when all indications are that it cannot serves to belittle the AfD process. The claim that notability can be established is such a weak one that we cannot allow the article to remain on the hopes that non-user generation content will one day be available. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 02:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it 'belittle the AfD process', comments without proper explaination will simply carry little weight in the final consensus. Saying that you think notability can be established but not explaining how and then pointing out that it hasn't actually been established is just bizarre. Unless the editor plans to come up with some sources pretty soon it's pointless commenting. --neon white talk 14:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Any particular reason that you're being so aggressive about it? I'm sure you can come up with a better way with telling me how the AfD process works than calling me "just bizarre". It sounds like you're treating me like a newbie editor (which for AfD, I am), yet personally, I would try to help out a newbie editor instead of beating them back down and telling them that their contributions are "pointless". DARTH PANDA^talk 15:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not call anyone bizarre or make any personal comments, i said that "Saying that you think notability can be established but not explaining how and then pointing out that it hasn't actually been established is just bizarre". Which i stand by, it's a strange argument to go with a 'keep' comment. Your arguing that notability has not been established which is a reason to delete an article not keep it. The fact is unless contributions make clear points and not confused ones, they are pointless. I recommend Wikipedia:Afd#How to discuss an AfD --neon white talk 16:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 21:13, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 21:13, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not show any real notability. lacks siginficant independent coverage in multiple reliable sources. Article appears to rely on POV OR. Above "Keep" argument gives no real reason. (I have added an AFD notice on Opium Lounge) Duffbeerforme (talk) 12:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - virtually no information supported by reliable sources, and without anything that can be so verified, demonstrating that the band would comply with WP:MUSIC would be close to impossible, to say the least. B.Wind (talk) 04:00, 25 October 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 02:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steel Clan

This fictional group does not establish notability independent of its series through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement. TTN (talk) 18:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't even think this is worth a merge. JuJube (talk) 18:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:23, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, in-universe plot summary. See WP:NOR. Stifle (talk) 20:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 21:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 21:12, 21 October 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. The "merge" proposal puzzles me because this article appears to be outside the scope of the target article. Sandstein 19:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yavac

This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of its series through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement. TTN (talk) 18:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of third-party sources and coverage. Stifle (talk) 20:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 21:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 02:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--this means nothing outside of the books. Drmies (talk) 02:12, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-- this thing has neither sourcing nor significance outside the books. Reyk _YO! 02:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Bolo (tank) per WP:FICT. Bsimmons666 (talk) 03:21, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Bolo (tank) per WP:FICT. If it is not note-worthy outside the books than that is a reason to keep it within book-related articles, not a reason for deletion.- Mgm|^(talk) 08:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete That the subject is not covered in articles which confer it significance outside the fictional world is, in fact, a reason for deletion. Protonk (talk) 08:05, 27 October 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 02:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rommie

This character does not establish notability independent of its series through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement. TTN (talk) 18:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, original research with a healthy dollop of plot summary. Stifle (talk) 20:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC) Keep as improved. Stifle (talk) 08:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Andromeda characters. Edward321 (talk) 23:49, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ changed to Keep, see below is some appropriate place, with a small amount of discussion. As merged, it does not have to show WP:N. As usual on these nominations, no reason for not merging was even suggested. DGG (talk) 00:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the other Andromeda characters to List of Andromeda characters (which is currently a redirect to the main article). I bet that that notability can be established for at least GA-level, but as usual, once fandom has moved on, fiction articles without already established notability just keep sticking in eternal badness if nothing is done. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:13, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 21:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 21:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable character, notable series. Hobit (talk) 00:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-- now is referenced. No need to even consider a merge, now that it meets what people consider the gold standard of GNG. DGG (talk) 02:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:23, 23 October 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 Pee-wee's Playhouse. Sandstein 20:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conky 2000

This character does not establish notability independent of its series through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement. TTN (talk) 18:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to the lack of third-party sources. Stifle (talk) 20:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect the discussion in the main rticle is quite adequate to the purpose. As usual, no reason given why a redirect is inappropriate. DGG (talk) 01:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 21:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 21:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 02:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The main article has enough; this article is too much. Drmies (talk) 02:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to main article. Nominators and delete !voters need to make a case why redirection isn't preferable. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:40, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note--I can tell you why I think deleting is good: "Conky would then begin to move, emanating electronic sounds from his audio speakers (which were part of a stereo "boom box", lending further evidence to his being pieced together from all sorts of consumer electronics) as though he was "booting up". Upon activation, Conky would move around in an exaggerated fashion, often flailing his arms and spinning on his wheels. He would then exclaim with an electronic stutter (like the sampling keyboard effect used in many '80s pop songs), "Conky 2000, r-r-ready to assist you, P-P-Pee-wee!" Pee-wee would then request the secret word, which would then appear from a slot on one of Conky's front panels on a slip of cash register sale receipt-like paper (in the later seasons, it was a piece of card stock)." This is a robot on a TV show from two decades ago--not notable in its own right, certainly not at such length. Drmies (talk) 01:45, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone is arguing to actually keep the article as a separate article. The qy is why delete rather than redirect, & I do not see that you or the nom have answered it. I don't see why the show being old has anything to do with either notability or suitability for a redirect. DGG (talk) 03:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect. I'm not convinced that some affirmative case has to be made about redirects every single time. Every element of fiction has an obvious redirect target: the fictional work which it is a part of. This doesn't mean that a redirect is always preferable, that a merge is appropriate, or that a redirect can't be placed there following deletion. In this case, the nominator has a very clear reason why he wouldn't redirect the article--past experience has shown that to be fruitless in general. Either way, subject isn't covered in reliable, independent sources. Protonk (talk) 08:09, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If "past experience has shown that to be fruitless in general", that is usually only when there has been no consensus to redirect. Many of TTN's redirects in the past have not been contested and continue to exist without contention. From what I can see, it was the raw speed and volume of redirects, and the lack of discussion over reverted redirects, that led to these "fruitless" results. So now instead of discussing only the contentious redirects, are we going to have to waste time discussing every single article TTN would have simply redirected in the past, instead of only the controversial ones? How is that a preferable solution? Why are these being discussed on AfD instead of on the article's talk page, at an appropriate WikiProject, or at proposed mergers? DHowell (talk) 01:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

those that have been objected to have been mainly those that lose content. They should be objected to--a more appropriate merge would generally be approved. in a 3rdO if necessary. Even I have repeatedly offered to help support those. The way to deal with disputes over merges is dispute resolution, not afd. DGG (talk) 02:27, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/merge - conky is a simple word which may be looked up (as a main character of an old notable TV series), and hence is a searchable term. And it is covered in other sources, as evidenced by he references. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and/or merge. This is a plausible search term, and deletion is supposed to be a last resort. It is policy that "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion"; and redirection is one form of "regular editing" (i.e. it doesn't require an administrator to perform). DHowell (talk) 01:28, 28 October 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 Bumin Khan. seems to have been what was desired anyway. I have re-directed, content is under there if someone wants to work on it. TravellingCari 02:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tumen Il-Qağan

There is already a page Bumin Khan existent that is wikified and nearly the exact same information, and then some. This page is a redundancy that is at best a candidate for speedy deletion, and at worse a candidate for merger and deletion. Brokenwit (talk) 18:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge why not simply have proposed it--I cant see anyone would have objected. DGG (talk) 01:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 21:08, 21 October 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. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:55, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Senturion

This character does not establish notability independent of its series through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement. TTN (talk) 18:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. High on plot details, low on notability and sources. Stifle (talk) 20:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge, depending on what's the status of other characters. Stifle,I notice this time you worded things a little relatively, so I assume you think this one might have some possibilities? DGG (talk) 01:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If anything in the article was cited, I would. Stifle (talk) 13:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 21:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 21:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks coverage in reliable sources, and since that is the case, coverage of this character shall be covered in no article at all. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 22:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No coverage in reliable third part sources so not notable. RMHED (talk) 18:03, 24 October 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 List of Superior Defender Gundam Force characters. MBisanz ^talk 23:12, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Gundam

This character does not establish notability independent of its series through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement. TTN (talk) 18:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, yet more Gundamcruft. Stifle (talk) 20:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Gundam Wikia. Wikipedia is place for very notable mobile suits (Example: the original Gundam). Zero Kitsune (talk) 21:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect actually, I think the description in List of Superior Defender Gundam Force characters is clearer. DGG (talk) 01:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per DGG. Edward321 (talk)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 21:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 21:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it establish independent notability. With coverage in reliable third party sources, it consists of necessary plot summary and unoriginal research. --63.3.1.130 (talk) 17:31, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and where is this coverage by reliable third-party sources? Neither the article nor you cited any. --Farix (Talk) 19:03, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on further review of the IPs contributions, it appears to be a SPA that is stalking TTN (talk · contribs) through AFD. --Farix (Talk) 22:11, 25 October 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 02:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Krogoth

This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of its series through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement. TTN (talk) 18:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, uncited original research and chock-full of in-game references unsuitable for an encyclopedia. Stifle (talk) 20:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 11:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - pretty sure individual RTS units don't fall within WP:VGSCOPE, e.g. excessive detail. Nifboy (talk) 14:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking reliable third-party sources, thus failing WP:N and WP:V. Only source is insufficient. Randomran (talk) 01:57, 24 October 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 02:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jinmay (SRMTHFG)

This character does not establish notability independent of its series through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement. TTN (talk) 18:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, plot summary and original research; not a citation in sight. Stifle (talk) 20:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 21:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete for lack of context. --EEMIV (talk) 21:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT#PLOT Covered much better in List of characters in Super Robot Monkey Team Hyperforce Go!, this can be redirected there after deletion. --Phirazo (talk) 03:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It seems original research to me. -- nips (talk) 22:56, 22 October 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 02:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jedikiah (Tomorrow People)

This character does not establish notability independent of its series through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement. TTN (talk) 18:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge any cited information into The Tomorrow People. In other words, delete. Stifle (talk) 20:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]
merge and delete are not synonyms, but opposite. Merging is an alternative to deletion, according to WP:Deletion policy, section 2.3 , so I suppose you mean to amend your statment to: "merge any cited information into The Tomorrow People. In other words, keep. DGG (talk) 01:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, I mean exactly what I typed and I'm fully aware of the deletion policy. However, there is no cited material, therefore nothing will be merged, therefore deletion is appropriate. Stifle (talk) 13:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As there are now some citations, changing to merge that much (and no more) into The Tomorrow People. Stifle (talk) 08:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 20:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 21:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' seems to be some cited material now., enough to establish notability as a separate article. DGG (talk) 00:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article now meets WP:GNG. I wish people would look for sources before !voting for deletion... Hobit (talk) 01:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article sourcing seems to have been expanded, establishing it better. Wily D 13:01, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand per souces. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:27, 23 October 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. While consensus wasn't overly obvious, the direction of the discussion was that the article had improved just enough to justify its existence. — Scientizzle 19:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boston Medical Group

This article is/was an attempt at advertising with unverified claims since at least July, 2008. The previous citations only parroted information on the Boston Medical Groups website. AlbertHall (talk) 18:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Unverified and advertising-style claims should be scrubbed, but the entry is worth keeping and improving. Boston Medical Group, as a company, generates significant interest on the web (Google KW tool estimates 9900 monthly searches for the term "Boston Medical Group".) A neutral Wikipedia page about the company would be useful for anyone combing the thicket of (often unreliable) web information about erectile dysfunction treatment - which Boston Medical Group offers at its various clinic locations.--Williamfernandez (talk) 18:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a total lack of substance once the advertising has been removed. Let google take care of google search numbers. The information that could be given in a sourced Wikipedia article would be only directory information DGG (talk) 01:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is no room for unsubstantiated advertising claims on Wikipedia. No proof of efficacy, no patent information. Google and yellow pages can handle the scant information available. When peer-reviewed information becomes available about BMG's approach, it could be mentioned under erectile dysfunction. AlbertHall (talk) 12:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete really counts as WP:SPAM. no establishment of why this organisation is more notable than your average medical clinic. Michellecrisp (talk) 23:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 20:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 20:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Please see the revisions I have made to this article including 7 reliable source citations. This company's radio advertisements are ubiquitous fixtures on male-oriented shows like Howard Stern and Tom Leykis, so I'm surprised there is not more independent coverage. However, I did manage to dig up a few sources, including a New York magazine article[18] which features the author's visit to the clinic in the last half of the article; a newspaper article about its "racy" billboard ads[19]; and a few rather minor mentions including one citing its ironic slogan "Premature ejaculation? Immediate results."[20] There were also a couple of negative pieces including a doctor who was sanctioned[21] and a court case involving an erection lasting for over TWO DAYS![22]. DHowell (talk) 02:40, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at the revisions, and I removed the final one, about a Texas case, which is certainly not acceptable. It's a primary source, for a court decision only to the effect that the group does business in Texas, and does not support the allegations of harm from their treatment. Whether the NY Post article , again about a specific physician in the group, is relevant, would need to be discussed if the article is kept. Just as the article cannot be an ad, it should not be a discussion about the side effects of one particular FDA-approved medical method that is not at all limited to this chain of clinics. DGG (talk) 03:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep if it is made clear that the notability is primarily about the advertising campaign. I think the sources are just sufficient to show that. DGG (talk) 03:48, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as improved and (moderately) sourced. Hobit (talk) 15:45, 24 October 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. Cirt (talk) 21:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arado Balanga

These elements of the Super Robot Wars series do not establish independent notability. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, these are just made up of unnecessary plot summary, game guide material, and original research. TTN (talk) 18:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC) TTN (talk) 18:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

TTN (talk) 18:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. TTN (talk) 18:13, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOR, for a start. Stifle (talk) 20:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. They don't establish any notability and they contain real world information. -- nips (talk) 20:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Destroy them all, all per WP:NOT#OR (some of them are just baffling); but first, let's make sure there's an alternate home for all this content (i.e. transwiki), because I'm sure someone or a small group of editors did a lot of work here, and we shouldn't make it a complete loss. MuZemike (talk) 21:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Combine appropriately into a list Judging by a sampling, there is no justification for individual articles, but I equally see no justification for total omission. DGG (talk) 01:24, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into an appropriate character list article. Edward321 (talk) 14:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into character list Hobit (talk) 01:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as lacking reliable third-party sources, thus failing WP:N and WP:V. The reason that we don't merge is because that won't solve the central issue: a lack of reliable third-party sources even in aggregate, thus failing WP:N and WP:V even when compiled together. Randomran (talk) 01:59, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete none of the articles show any evidence of coverage by third party reliable sources. A character list may be appropriate but I don't think that these largely original research based plot summaries would be a good basis for it. Guest9999 (talk) 10:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this article establishes independent notability. With coverage in reliable third party sources, it is made up of necessary plot summary and unoriginal research. --63.3.1.130 (talk) 17:33, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Where have I heard that before? MuZemike (talk) 21:10, 25 October 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 close — nomination withdrawn along with a consensus to merge, which can be discussed in further detail at Talk:MicroProse. AfD is no longer needed. Non-admin closure. MuZemike (talk) 07:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Microprose Systems

Per WP:CORP and WP:CRYSTAL. Website offline since September. This non-notable company which is just 6 months old and sells TV converters, got mentioned in some blogs because of the name association to MicroProse Software, which ceased to exist in 2001. EconomistBR 17:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 17:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Further discussion relative to the AFD is also located here. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 18:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge relative info with Microprose. Company was a licensor of the brand and properties from the current brand owner Patrick Leleu, publicly announced a line of products through press releases and interviews, went through a public CECB certification process (and is currently up on the certification site) and several other related issues. Likewise there is the current press release I was just sent (via CG.Com), detailing the unlicensing and merger of MicroProse Systems and MicroProse CED in to a new company -

Legacy Engineering Group Parts Ways With Microprose Brand New York, NY. – October 20th, 2008 – Legacy Engineering Group (LEG) announced today the discontinuation of their licensing agreement with Frederic Chesnais and Interactive Game Group (I2G), owners of the Microprose® brand and related properties. This discontinuation affects LEG subsidiaries Microprose Systems and Microprose Consumer Electronics Division, which have been combined and rebranded Legacy Consumer Electronics (LCE). The Microprose Systems and related websites will no longer be maintained or hosted by LCE, and all domain ownership will revert to Frederic Chesnais. LCE is continuing to move forward and release the previously announced and eagerly anticipated product line of professional gaming controllers, PSP power accessories, entertainment center components, and exciting games. This includes the recently announced Classic USB Joystick Controller for $14.99.

About Legacy Engineering Group: Legacy Engineering Group© and its subsidiary Legacy Consume Electronics© are a developer of video game accessories, consumer electronics products, and video game software. Web site: www.legacyengineer.com. About I2G: Interactive Game Group (I2G) is a company acquiring, financing and licensing video games and other interactive entertainment properties, whether packaged media, online or wireless. Created by Frederic Chesnais, former Chief Executive Officer of Atari Interactive, Inc., I2G develops and finances a portfolio of video game properties.

--Marty Goldberg (talk) 18:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Microprose. There's not enough verifiable sources for the article to stand on its own. Would also fit better in the parent article. MuZemike (talk) 18:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with MicroProse. not enough notability for a split. --neon white talk 20:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination - In the light of the new information provided by Marty Goldberg I withdraw the nomination.

Micropose Systems still exists just under a different name, Micropose Systems became Legacy Consumer Electronics and the brand Microprose was returned to the Interactive Game Group. Merging a company that still exists to Microprose would not work since the company now has a different name, instead I prefer to withdraw the nomination. EconomistBR 04:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While the corporation has been reformed under a new name, that still leaves the issue that it was operating as a Microprose licensee and releasing press releases as such over the past year, and certification was granted for its tuner box as part of the Microprose brand. I still think the material should be merged, as people here have stated it does not have enough verifiable sources to stand on its own but is a part of the Microprose brand history. If Legacay Consumer Electronics gets enough notable sources to warrant an article on Wikipedia (which it currently does not have), it can always be created again under that with a short summary discussing its previous connection to the Microprose brand. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 04:24, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy Consumer Electronics has no longer any sort of affiliation to the MicroProse brand, therefore hosting an article about that company on the MicroProse article would be a mistake. A merger would only confuse readers since they would be redirected to the company's old name. EconomistBR 04:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're a bit confused on what is being stated. Nobody is stating to merge info about Legacy Consumer Electronics or redirects. The discussion of this AFD and the consensus so far is to merge the information about Microprose Systems, which no longer exists as a name and brand, and was/is a valid and documented part of Microprose history via the material reported above. Likewise, Legacy Consumer Elecontrics is a newly formed entity that has no press or notable coverage as of yet, so it does not warrant an article on Wikipedia. It was being suggested that when it does, an article for it can be created with a brief section on its past association with the Microprose brand as Microprose Systems. There is not confusion to readers, that would only occur if you were merging a Legacy Consumer Electronics article into Microprose and redirecting Legacy Consumer Electronics to Microprose, which is not happening and was not being called for. The consensus is for merger of Microprose Systems, which did have an affiliation to Microprose, and did have public press, reviews of products, etc. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 04:59, 21 October 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 01:57, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nightwish' 7th Album

Future album. Fails WP:V, WP:NOTE, WP:MUSIC, WP:CRYSTAL. Only one song is finished, "It's gonna be fantastic to start working with it full-time, sometime next year", per a primary source. Amalthea^Talk 17:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; The article seems useless at the moment, the paragraph it has in the Nightwish article is enough, at least until more information, such as a complete tracklist or more information about the eventual change of musical style. Agree for deletion. - Aki (talk) 17:49, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; 85.165.176.205 has changed the article radically, deleting the rumours and eventually false information. I believe it should be kept as it is a fact that the album is to be produced soonly, and since the writing on it has begun. Otherwise, the article would still be re-written in just a month or two. - Aki (talk) 08:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Crystal hammer — pure speculation. Delete. MuZemike (talk) 18:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:HAMMER, no secondary sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now, can be re-created once solid info is available. -12.68.8.18 (talk) 20:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above: speculation. Cliff smith ^talk 06:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HAMMER. Stifle (talk) 13:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 20:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No title, no set release date, no confirmed tracks. Fails WP:HAMMER. DiverseMentality^(Boo!) 17:58, 23 October 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, nomination withdrawn. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David A. Hodell

Non-notable bio about a professor at the University of Florida. Article fails to assert notability. Included references that mention the subject's work also fail to assert notability. Millbrooky (talk) 17:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 18:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article failed to assert notability, but the references included his CV, which listed his publications and awards.He was named a fellow of the American Geophysical Union in 2007, which appears to satisfy criterion 3 of WP:PROF; I have added this to the article, with an appropriate cite. A cursory Google Scholar search confirms that he has published extensively in his field, and his works are heavily cited: just the first 9 articles returned in that search collectively have over 1,000 cites. Maralia (talk) 22:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis of the material found. Notability for a research is references that discuss his work.DGG (talk) 01:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~. Strong Keep. Most likely being an elected fellow of American Geophysical Union is enough to satisfy criterion 3 of WP:PROF. But even if not, taking this together with high citability results (particularly the articles in Nature and Science), he passes criterion 1 of WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 02:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, change to strong keep. Effective October 1, 2008 he has been appointed Woodwardian Professor of Geology at Cambridge University [23]. Thus satisfies criterion 5 of WP:PROF, as holding a "named/personal chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research." Nsk92 (talk) 14:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw Well that's good enough for me. Now off I go to read WP:PROF a little more closely. --Millbrooky (talk) 15:04, 21 October 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 01:56, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jane's Hotel

Issues with this video game: very poor grammar, may be an advertisement, unreferenced, and almost certainly not notable. I could not find any reliable refs for this article amid the hundreds of links to go play the shockwave version of the game. Millbrooky (talk) 17:13, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 17:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see nothing notable about this game. I was thinking to merge and redirect to Realore Studios but while looking there, I find that Realore Studios itself seems to fail WP:N. There are a number of games that this studio has produced that have articles here and all appear to be the dime a dozen flash games that are produced by the thousands a year.--Pmedema (talk) 18:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Besides a very usable Gamezebo review there's nothing else coming out of google (had a look for sources for this one previously, as well as another go just now). Multiple reliable sources are needed to establish notability and provide materials to build an article with, one won't do. A rash of Realore games were created a few days ago and I'm struggling to find acceptable sources for any of them besides Gamezebo who review a lot of casual games. Someone another 23:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — lack of verifiable sources besides what is stated above that can remotely establish notability of this game (i.e. no significant coverage). MuZemike (talk) 19:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note — Realore Studios as well as many other of its games have been proposed for deletion for the same reasons as in this AfD. MuZemike (talk) 19:51, 21 October 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. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:53, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Francis Ames

Non-notable children's book author. Her literary work does not contain any notable books. Could not find any references to establish notability. Millbrooky (talk) 16:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've added a couple of references to the article. OK, they're not extensive, but the fact that I could come up with online sources in five minutes for an author who was active over a hundred years ago indicates that she must have been notable in her time, and notability doesn't expire. There seem to be plenty more sources available via a Google Books search but in nearly all cases no more than a snippet is displayed, so research in a library would be needed to expand the article further. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 20:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Phil Hobit (talk) 01:05, 22 October 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 based on the precendent set at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Nepal 2003 & Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Nepal 2005...it'll be a soft redirect so that any future merging can access the content. — Scientizzle 18:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Nepal 2002

Content of this article is irrelevant to the subject. It talks about the winner instead of the competition. Not a single line talks about Miss Nepal 2002(the event). Apart from that, it looks like copyright violation from some online newspaper. Seeing the previous track record of the creator who has been introducing copyrighted materials on regular basis, I doubt it is copied and pasted from http://www.nepalnews.com.np/contents/englishdaily/trn/2002/dec/dec08/index.htm. Hitro 14:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As with the other Miss Nepal year articles, merge to Miss Nepal. As for talking about the winner... it should talk about the winner in any case. It shouldn't just talk about the winner... Did you read the article? It does talk about other things. 70.55.200.131 (talk) 12:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 October 14 70.55.200.131 (talk) 12:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it talks about when and where the winner born, what is her weight and height. But there is no information about where and when this event took place. Please clarify, what do you want me to see in the AfD Logs. I don't think consensus has reached on any discussion at the moment. Hitro 15:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nine members' judges' panel also selected Lhamo Yangchen Sherpa and Pinky Shah as second and first runner up of the contests respectively. They were awarded with cash prizes bagging Rs.15,000 and Rs.25,000 respectively. Pinky Shah also bagged the Colgate best photogenic award while Sagun Sharma and Prabha Kadariya were awarded best smile and best dress awards.

The programme was organised in three roundups. Ten and five contestants were selected in first and second roundups. The final titles were announced in the third and the final round. The beauty contest was organised in joint collaboration by Hidden Treasure, Kathmandu Jaycees and Dabur Batika. And, it was choreographed by Rachana Gurung, Sharma.

That is not solely about the winner. You didn't read the article, did you? 70.55.200.131 (talk) 09:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so this is what you were disputing over. With your point above, You clearly mean that rest of the article is worthless and irrelevant to the subject, don't you? FYI, I am not against your vote of merger or redirection. Hitro 13:28, 19 October 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 16:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Content itself need re-written, but that is an editing issue. The subject matter itself is notable and the article is worth keeping.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree that this is an edit issue. --Quartermaster (talk) 16:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 20:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Miss Nepal: Two similar AfDs have already completed a few days ago on Miss Nepal 2003 and Miss Nepal 2005, both of which resulted in redirects to the main article. The answer should be the same for this article, which is about little more than the winner. I'm familiar with the article creator's track record, and unfortunately, this looks to me like a roundabout way of creating an article on one of his admired winners. The information on that year's event could easily be summarised and placed into the main article, just like all of the other years. If you take out all of the biography details not related to the event, you would be left with little more than a stub. Why create a stub for every year for a (relatively) small competition when the main article does/will do the job just fine. Maedin\^talk 06:59, 23 October 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. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Training ground

This article title and content implies that "training grounds" are solely used for soccer training. Attempts to remove the overly-specific content and to generalize the page left it as a mere dictionary definition, something which Wikipedia is not.
Despite attempts and requests since July, the page has remained completely unimproved. At this point, I am forced to the conclusion that it is unrepairable and that the project would be better off without this misleading page. The page is now orphaned but prior to orphaning, the few inbound links referred to all manner of training grounds (military, other sports, etc), not merely to soccer. Rossami (talk) 16:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: This page was previously deleted via PROD. It was restored on the assertion that "it could be developed into a good article". The only significant changes since restoration were the addition of a list of examples of soccer fields - no correction of the core issue that was promised in the DRV request. Rossami (talk) 16:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 16:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Although there is an issue with regard to the content of this article, deleting it is not the answer. One wonders why the nominating editor did not take the necessary steps to improve the article. One assumes that they were just being lazy. – PeeJay 17:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Mind ad hominem attacks. Argue about the article and not the nom. MuZemike (talk) 18:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The reason the article is now orphaned is because the nominating editor has systematically removed all the inbound links! Jmorrison230582 (talk) 17:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Revert, Keep, and Move/Create Dab — to avoid confusion. I agree that "Training ground" means different things in different contexts, and that is why we have disambiguation and the ability to move pages. MuZemike (talk) 18:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to Training ground (association football) - training grounds are significant in the context of football clubs and the concept is encyclopaedic. The way forward is for the page to be expanded. I have also added back some clearly appropriate links. For example at The Cliff (training ground), 'training ground' is the prime descriptor and it is standard practice for it to be linked so that the reader can find information on the term. However, I agree that the specific application in the article needs to be distinguished, in the title, from the general usage of the term. Smile a While (talk) 20:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per PeeJay. Giant Snowman 11:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's nothing on this article that can't be fixed. Might be worth organising a WP:FOOTY collaberation here. Bettia (rawr!) 13:53, 21 October 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. Cirt (talk) 06:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blake Pickett

No sources found. Only claims to notability were as a model on two cable game shows. Seems to fail WP:V. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with the Hammer on this one. Unless, as usual, extensive research by subject's defenders convinces me otherwise. --Quartermaster (talk) 16:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 20:52, 21 October 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 01:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm with the hammer also. Drmies (talk) 02:38, 24 October 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bigfoot: The Unforgettable Encounter

Movie that does not appear to satisfy WP:MOVIE. Was PRODded and deleted some 10 days ago, and recreated today. The article's history before the deletion was also restored. Bonadea (talk) 15:51, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:MOVIE has five points for notability. For point 1, while it may have had some sort of commercial release, I can't find any mainstream critic reviews. Point 2 doesn't seem to apply. Points 3, 4, and 5 are nowhere near applying. Therefore, it fails the criteria, and should be deleted. gnfnrf (talk) 19:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 20:51, 21 October 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 01:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A notability guideline says: "The film features significant involvement (ie. one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career." I would argue that the involvement of Zachery Ty Bryan was important in the later development of his career. This appears his first lead role in a movie. Also, this movie appears to have been distributed in more countries than just in the US as I am from the Netherlands and remember seeing it. Need some more time to dig up a reference to prove that though. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this was a big film in its day and if any policy suggests that it shouldn't be listed then we need to change that policy. Skip1337 (talk) 09:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; while I find it unlikely that it was "a big film in its day" (independent film, apparently direct-to-video?), it seems marginally notable. Everyking (talk) 07:46, 27 October 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 01:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MatsuriCon

There are no claims of notability in this article describing an anime conference. Despite requests on the contributing editor's talk page (here) and the article talk page (here), the main editor has repeatedly declined to provide claims or evidence of notability.

The references do not provide support for keeping the article:

"MasturiCon 2006 Announced". Animenewsnetwork.com (2005-11-08). Retrieved on 2005-11-08. Press release announcing convention. Not independent coverage.
"MatsuriCon 2006 Hotel Change". Animecons.com. Retrieved on 2006-03-29. As stated, announcement of hotel change. Not significant coverage"
"MatsuriCon Signature Events". MatsuriCon.org. Retrieved on 2008-09-27. Conference web site roster of events. Not independent coverage.
"MasturiCon 2006 Info". Animecons.com. Retrieved on 2008-09-17. Summary statistics with no commentary or information that implies notability. Not significant coverage.
"MatsuriCon 2007 Info". Animecons.com. Retrieved on 2008-09-18. Summary statistics with no commentary or information that implies notability. Not significant coverage.
"MatsuriCon 2008 Info". Animecons.com. Retrieved on 2008-09-18. Summary statistics with no commentary or information that implies notability. Not significant coverage.
"MatsuriCon LiveJournal". Livejournal.com. Retrieved on 2008-10-16. Fan blog. Not significant coverage in reliable source independent of the subject.

This article should be deleted without delay. Bongomatic (talk) 15:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable anime con, as evidenced both by the scarcity of coverage and the very low attendence figure (400) claimed in the article itself. For comparison's sake, Otakon had more than 26,000 attendants. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above and nominator. There's nothing to indicate particular notability of this over other anime conventions. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 17:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 400?! Not over nine thousand? And three years of events are not significative. Zero Kitsune (talk) 21:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability criteria, though I think the primary editor should have been given more then four days to find evidence for notability. However, an extensive Google search turned up no third-party coverage by a reliable source. Unfortunately the Columbus Dispatch's archives were down so a search of them can't be conducted. --Farix (Talk) 01:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article was created on 18 September, so its creator has had sufficient time. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 08:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Farix (Talk) 01:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of impact, notability, interest, or influence. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 08:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Starblind. Unnotable convention that fails WP:N. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (moved from talk page by User:Collectonian):

I don't care if this is a small convention or not. I was planning to attend Anime Punch! 2008 and I couldn't make it because my BFF was going to be the Maid of Honor in her older sister's wedding. So I decided to back out of the con and attend another one, but I really wanted to attend one this past summer so I did my research and came across MatsuriCon on animecons.com! I knew it was going to be a small con, but I still wanted to go.

Quite frankly, it's recommended that newbies attend smaller cons before attending the bigger ones. (Reference: Hey, Answerman!! from the Anime News Network) So when I came across MatsuriCon, I was like..."Sweet. Maybe I can find out more about it on Wikipedia, seeing how there isn't a lot of info about the con's past on their homepage: www.matsuricon.org!" Lo-and-behold, there wasn't an article to give me more info about it, so it got me thinking: "Maybe I shouldn't go, seeing how I don't know anything about it." But I went anyway, and I had a great time.

So what if the attendance isn't all that great after being around for 3 years? I'll bet the same thing wouldn't have been said about Ohayocon, seeing how the attendance was "all that and a bag of chips." Small or large, all anime conventions need to be given a chance, and a little publicity goes a long way; but seeing how all people do is swear by Ohayocon (so much in fact that it makes me sick)...the little guy isn't getting a chance.

-FemaleWolfDemon

P.S. However, if there is something I can do to make this more significant. Tell me! Don't just stand there and criticize, HELP! FemaleWolfDemon 09:40, October 22, 2008 (UTC)

Hi FemaleWolfDemon, I have left you a response in a new section of your talk page. Bongomatic (talk) 03:20, 23 October 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 — nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closure. MuZemike (talk) 21:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2005 Northern Iowa Panthers football team

~~Questionable notability for this single season of a college football team. raven1977 (talk) 15:27, 20 October 2008 (UTC)~~ Nomination withdrawn, see comment below. raven1977 (talk) 21:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —raven1977 (talk) 15:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep relevance of single season articles of college football is discussed at the essay WP:CFBSEASON. And if that isn't enough, they ended up #2 in Division I-AA.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs some cleanup and sourcing, but the Panthers play at the highest level of college sports, Division I, and the 2005 team was runner up for the NCAA Division I Football Championship. --Geologik (talk) 17:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Could use fleshing out, but nothing wrong here. If we're not careful, there could be odd consequences...i.e. check out these two FAs: 2007 USC Trojans football team and 2005 Texas Longhorn football team. --Bobak (talk) 17:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Geologik. JKBrooks85 (talk) 20:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was unaware of the notability essay for College Football season articles; I was unsure where to look, so I just glanced through the general notability guidelines. But now I see there's a good guideline for this, which this article does meet, so thank you to those above, for the information. I wish to withdraw my nomination. raven1977 (talk) 21:04, 20 October 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 01:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CAIR Watch

A completely non-notable blog that seems to simply collect content from other sites like MilitantIslamMonitor.org, Jihad Watch and FrontPage Magazine when the content is critical of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). Nothing in the entry established notability - WP:N. Wikipedia is not a blog nor does it exist to be the mouthpiece of blogs - WP:NOT. An alternative to deletion might be merging one or two sentences of content into Criticism of the Council on American-Islamic Relations PelleSmith (talk) 15:03, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. There are articles in the NY Times, Broward-Palm Beach New Times, Canada Free Press, etc. They got a US Senator to recind an award given - This is almost never done. This is very notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lansing3456 (talk • contribs) 15:27, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Lansing3456 was the article's only significant contributor and that has been blocked for sockpuppetry. Oren0 (talk) 03:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The award was rescinded because several conservative websites objected, there is no evidence that CAIR watch did it on their own. ~~Can you cite what the NY Times article says? I can't find it.~~ Sorry, found it. It isn't an article about CAIR watch, it's about Boxer rescinding the award. It has 2 sentences about Kaufman, one of which simply mentions CAIR watch. Doug Weller (talk) 18:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. —PelleSmith (talk) 15:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —PelleSmith (talk) 15:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Despite a handful of mentions in reliable sources, i cannot find anything that could be said to "address the subject directly in detail", a requirement for notability. Also seems like a coatrack to promote the views of the group rather than being about the group itself. --neon white talk 18:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Just a promotional article for a fringe hate group. Carol Moore 18:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

Delete insufficient mainstream media coverage. -- Nudve (talk) 19:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:N Oren0 (talk) 03:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the nomination. Seems clear-cut to me. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:59, 22 October 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 01:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Susanne Andreae

Not notable. Although she has published three books, these were introductory manuals and not original research. Wikipedia is not here to list publications. Mr.K. (talk) 15:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course keep ! She is notable enough. Concerning notability, its more or less depending on notions like space & time, in five years almost 99% of the people included for notability in the english wiki, - will be forgotten in real live ! So long, keep Andreae ! Pinus pinea (talk) 05:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the article doesn't establish notability, and I can't find evidence of her work having much impact/visibility. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Nomoskedasticity. Note that the corresponding article on German Wikipedia is somewhat more detailed, but even that entry does not really make any strong claim to notability. Also note that the previous "keep" opinion was tendered by the article's author, Pinus pinea. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 18:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]
delete fails WP:PROF, no evidence of impact of her work on the work of other scholars. Pete.Hurd (talk) 03:13, 22 October 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. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 00:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Athletico romsey

Extremely non-notable football club, playing only at the notional level 21 of the English football league system. Fails GNG. Re-creation of article which I initially speedied as Athletico Romsey, but when I saw it was back I decided that perhaps I'd been a bit hasty in speedying it and maybe it ought to be taken to AfD instead -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 15:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. I see this was deleted under its original name of Athletico Romsey. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 15:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable by any stretch of the imagination. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 15:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - completely non-notable due to a) the level of football they have achieved and b) lack of relevant third-party coverage. - fchd (talk) 15:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Alexf^(talk) 19:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 21:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wow, that's minor. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Totally non-notable, although the Brazilian and Greek 'superstars' with very English-sounding names made me chuckle. Bettia (rawr!) 13:44, 21 October 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 Closed as moot. No one at all is arguing the subject isn't encyclopedic. UncleG is now writing a sourced BLP compliant version - this afd was always pointless.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 17:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Günter Deckert

I restored this after speedy deleting it and then reviewing revision history. The current version was considered a negative unsourced WP:BLP violation and gutted. What was left did not assert notability, so on reflection, I restored this version. In this version, the subject appears very notable, but not particularly admirable by my standards. (I don't want my negative bias to cloud my judgment.) I'm not confident that this article is utterly beyond redemption, and would prefer consensus seeking here to unilateral action on my part. Dloh cierekim 15:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain - I seen the speedy-nom for this but having made an opinion on the AN discussion I thought it best if someone else handled it. Just commenting to bring participants' attention to the AN discussion and to the lede of WP:BLP; "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 15:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was thundering in my head. The problem, as I see it, is that it could be rewritten or sourced. At least toned down. Maybe, I'll take a crack at it. The thing came over from the German Wikipedia. I did not look there at the sourcing. As so often happens, real life gets in the way of my article woek. Cheers, Dloh cierekim

<after ec with below, which I have not read>Also, I think most of what was blanked is not so negative as to warrant removal. BLP does not mean we not tell the truth about people or only tell the good parts. Dloh cierekim 15:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - How negative it is, or how truthful isn't the point. The point is sourcing. We don't include negative material unless well-sourced.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 15:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, a debate here is irrelevant as this has nothing to do with notability. The correct response here is to speedy delete the article as a G10, it can then be undeleted immediately anyone offers to make it BLP compliant. However, eventualism is not acceptable here. The question is not "is the article salvageable?", the question is "will someone make it BLP compliant now?" If not, we must remove the article for now. So, I guess I'm saying "speedy delete, without prejudice to recreation or undeletion" unless someone is immediately offering to fix it. Certainly nothing for afd to debate here.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 15:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed as much as I could. Please look at current version. I'm outta time. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 15:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone reverted my changes. The whole point of deletion was removing the the blp. Dloh cierekim 15:51, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I reverted you. Your version was still a wholly unsourced BLP.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 15:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In my view Scott MacDonald is acting in a disruptive fashion by deleting the bulk of the article, leaving what is clearly non-notable. I am aware of BLP policies, however:

1. Sometimes we need to see what it is we are supposed to be discussing.

2. There may be adequate sources on the German language Wikipedia article, as I do not speak German this needs to be investigated.

3. There may be a case for saying speedy delete without prejudice to re-creation, but this needs to be taken by an admin. PatGallacher (talk) 16:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Em. BLP does not say "leave unsourced negative material if there 1) "may be adequate sources on another wiki" or 2) "It is convenient to save editors looking in the history" or 3) because only admins can make the call."--Scott MacDonald (talk) 16:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict with the above) We have a whole host of negative and currently unsourced material. I find it astonishing that you think this should remain. The whole purpose of WP:LIVING is to deal with this kind of page. I fully agree with Scott MacDonald's removal of the negative content. We don't say "wait and see if there are sources available" when we have a page like this. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 16:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It is clear from doing a basic search that there is a large amount of material about this person on the internet, I have already added 4 links myself. PatGallacher (talk) 16:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no doubt you are correct. And if someone wants to write a properly sourced article, then I will probably vote to keep too. But right now, there is no BLP compliant material to keep.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 16:37, 20 October 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 01:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Original Halloween Kiss

Not notable. I hate to have this deleted, but there appears to be no reliable source information on the candy. See, for example, Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL There does not appear to be enough reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy to maintain an independent article on this topic. -- Suntag ☼ 14:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I also couldn't find any substantial coverage that would satisfy our criteria. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 20:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find any coverage about this candy. As a Canadian, I am familiar with this style of candy although I'm not sure that the name is "Original Halloween Kiss" for the ones that I had as kid decades ago. I can confirm that they weren't well liked and were always the last eaten of the batch. but that is a personal observation and recollection, and is original research. I suspect that the article content is also original research. -- Whpq (talk) 20:12, 23 October 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 01:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Austin (actor)

Non-notable, fails WP:ENTERTAINER. Guest roles, none recurring. Minor roles in film. No significant coverage found. Disputed prod. Mdsummermsw (talk) 14:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No independent coverage that would satisfy WP:N. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of significant roles. no outside sources. Duffbeerforme (talk) 10:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 20:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Currently, it is just several unsubstantiated claims. →Wordbuilder (talk) 20:24, 23 October 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 01:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inpay

No apparent notability. Removed on "reference" that did not refer to Inpay. Remaining reference is a patent application. No reliable sources provided, none found. Previously speedied as spam. Contested prod. Mdsummermsw (talk) 14:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with nominator, this is blatant advertising (and I couldn't find anything reliable either). Drmies (talk) 14:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. →Wordbuilder (talk) 14:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is also a EU patent application - I believe this indicate notability Ecommerce99 16:13, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does a patent itself make something notable? Even if it does, does a mere patent application make something notable? →Wordbuilder (talk) 16:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Barely any information around on this subject, most of it (if not all) is from the company itself. I don't think applying for a patent makes something notable. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:21, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While the hawala exchange system is fascinating, this software isn't. Two patent applications do not establish notability. gnfnrf (talk) 19:57, 20 October 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 01:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hamza bin al wathan

Contested speedy, bio of a non-notable artist. No independent, secondary sources, fails WP:BIO, nothing indicating more than a local significance. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 14:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.Nrswanson (talk) 14:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree. I couldn't find anything either, and even if sources for the two exhibits, and the one review, are found, we are still dealing with an artist of only local notability. Drmies (talk) 14:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources found to satisfy WP:N, WP:BIO and other policies, guidelines. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. JBsupreme (talk) 05:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 20:08, 21 October 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 Wiltshire Library and Information Service. MBisanz ^talk 01:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Box library

This seems to be one of an intended series of articles about libraries in Wiltshire. Editor name suggests a COI. The articles themselves (2 so far) are near-identical and give no particular information other that what would be expected for a library. Fails WP:NOTGUIDE and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Ros0709 (talk) 21:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related page:[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. -- TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 01:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge both to (and create) Wiltshire Library and Information Service. While the individual libraries are likely not notable, the greater system might be. TravellingCari 02:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
...or Merge both into their respective towns, Box and Aldbourne. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:19, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:51, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to all three articles referenced by both TravellingCari and Brewcrewer; no need to avoid duplication, as the information is relevant both to the locale descriptions and to the library service as a whole. IMHO, county and district library services are generally notable (like school districts), but individual libraries not so. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:51, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The vast majority of libraries are not notable, and this is no exception as evidenced bt the fact that this article could be about pretty much any library in the world after changing a word or two. Merging two utterly non-notable things into one article doesn't seem very logical to me, as unless I'm missing some important point here the resulting article would be non-notable as well. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to appropriate locations. They're not notable on their own but could be mentioned elsewhere as part of a more general topic. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:27, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I added some references to both articles and created Wiltshire Library and Information Service. I discovered a royal visit to one of the library buildings here. I disagree with Starblind (talk • contribs • count), because I think that references from reliable sources exist for most public libraries. It's just that finding those references can be difficult. -- Eastmain (talk • contribs • count) 16:27, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Libraries are a bit difficult to place. I think reasonably large library systems are encyclopedic, an opinion I hold because the public library systems in Bergen and Oslo, as well as the university library in Trondheim, have articles in paper encyclopedias. A small local library however, does not really stick itself out more than a grocery store. As a branch of public service however, I see no harm in covering it in some form. Merging looks like the best compromise. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:09, 21 October 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 as a combination of blatant advertising that would require a fundamental rewrite and patent nonsense. I waded through the "official web site" and eventually found some coherent English in the form of a press clipping from People. As noted by Andrew Lenahan, there's a self-published book behind all this. The gibberish isn't an attempt to avoid deletion. It's the same style that the web site is written in, and is probably the author's style. The press clipping does describe the book as "probably only completely understandable by the author". This isn't even the name of the book, or the author. It's the name of the author's own publishing house. There's nothing at all salvageable from this article, and I have my doubts that an article on this subject could be written anyway. This has nothing to do with Japanese, by the way. The author apparently comes from Cape Town. Uncle G (talk) 14:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dinky-Bloc

I've read and re-read this article about a dozen times so far and I'm no further on. It manages to not say what it is and not assert notability for whatever it turns out to be about. This might be poor translation from Japanese or even poor comprehension on my side, but I think we could live without this article. Your mileage may differ. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ will never be anybody's hero now 13:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete an earlier (speedied) version of the article revealed this is a completely non-notable company, a publisher with apparently only one extremely obscure book to its credit. It seems to have been re-created as a nonsense page, apparently to temporarily avoid being deleted again. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:47, 20 October 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 Black Disciples#History and Organizational Structure. MBisanz ^talk 01:41, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Fin Black Disciples

Lack of notability. The article depends on a single source which probably doesn't even qualify as a WP:RS. No NPOV coverage. No mention of anything notable except their existence. Appears to be local interest only. Probably qualifies for speedy delete. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect to Black Disciples. Doesn't qualify as a speedy, but there isn't enough notability for it to stand on its on. Google news shows a few passing mentions at best, and a Google web search turns up a load of non-reliable blogs/self-published sites. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 13:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. The two sentences can easily be merged into Black Disciples#History and Organizational Structure, which already mentions the Blue Fins (though doesn't link to this particular article) Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 16:49, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If there were ample sources to support a merge (or a keep) I would be all in favor of it, but I'm seeing nothing of a reliable nature as per WP:RS guidelines. JBsupreme (talk) 04:48, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 20:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chicago-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 20:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Clearly meets the criteria for speedy deletion, A7-group. Article does not state the importance/notability of the organization, and fails to establish reliable sourcing.-Andrew c ^[talk]
Speedy delete CSD A7 applies as the article does not state why this organization is notable or important, nor does it provide any type of referencing material for the reader to figure it out on their own. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 22:51, 21 October 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 several sections of WP:NOT and closed per WP:SNOW. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3 2 1

Violates Wikipedia policy: Wikiepeda is not for things you made up one day WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article had already been proposed via a {{prod}} which was removed by an editor different than the author (although, admittedly by an anon IP). WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MADEUP. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 12:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFT. Dekisugi (talk) 12:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NFT, WP:BOLLOCKS, and some of the anecdotal material is disparaging towards the named players. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:BOLLOCKS fits the bill. Huon (talk) 13:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because of all above. --Banime (talk) 13:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SNOW Delete: per WP:MADEUP. Schuym1 (talk) 13:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - It's been established that this article serves no encyclopedia value --Flewis^(talk) 13:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as above. I expect the section "Famous Players" might be more accurate if it were renamed "Only Players". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as absolute stupid. If you wanna redirect this to that game show, be my guest. ViperSnake151 15:01, 20 October 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 01:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hakobune

Unreferenced article about non-notable game. A web search turns up only trivial mentions on web forums. DAJF (talk) 12:27, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This looks like someone's homebrew setting. The cited sources are for the manufacturer of the parent game, and have nothing to do with the specific content in the article. No more notable than my own home campaign. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable third party sources of notability. Zero Kitsune (talk) 21:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Delete This as spam. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 22:41, 22 October 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 01:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P. Vinod Bhattathiripad + Vinod Bhattathiripad (identical article)

This article was declined a speedy deletion because the admin believed that the subject was notable enough. However, a simple google search only yields 167 returns (62 of which belong to the site listed below), with very little information on the subject. The article contains no outbound or inbound wiki links. No references, or citations. The article claims that the subject, is the Chief Co-ordinator of http://www.namboothiri.com (the single external link within the article) - "Namboothiri Website" - "a forum for documenting Namboothiri traditions in web". The entire article is written in resume style:

"He has traveled to several countries abroad including Switzerland, Germany, France, England, Poland, Liechtenstein, China, Hong Kong, Singapore, Malaysia and so on{{weasel word}}, several times"
"He has completed M. Sc. (Operations Research & Computer Applications ) and M. Phil. (Computer Science) and has headed around 148 software projects{{which}}"
"He has visited (is visiting{{when}}) as a resource person in Cochin University of Science and Technology"
"With the experience of being the commentator for three Somayaagas {{what}}, he has appeared in related programmes in BBCWORLD and Discovery channels.{{which}}"

Like I mentioned before, none of this can be Verified, so all the content is propbably attributed to WP:OR and would therefore violate WP:BLP - a whole other problem in itself. Flewis^(talk) 12:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator, who has provided sufficient reasons for deleting this cv. Drmies (talk) 14:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 14:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There is another Vinod Bhattathiripad here created by the same person. Salih (talk) 15:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added to Afd --Flewis^(talk) 15:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : non-notable. Never seen him on Discovery til now. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 16:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Few references exist. [24] No verifiable claims to support most of the content. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As the admin who declined speedy deletion, I didn't decline it because I "believed that the subject was notable enough". I declined it because the rationale for speedy deletion was that it was an article that didn't assert notability. But the article does assert notability: "one of the first computer engineers in India to practice cyber crime investigation". Whether the person is in fact notable is another matter altogether, which can be discussed here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteNon-notable. --GPPande talk! 10:22, 22 October 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 01:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Malls in Punjab (India)

I don't see how a list of shopping malls is encyclopedic. WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:INDISCRIMINATE Omarcheeseboro (talk) 12:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see, similar articles exist in wikipedia, List of shopping malls in the United States and also check Category:Lists. Quality check 12:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)(talk)

Keep. Lists are useful and serve to indicate through redlinks articles which ought to be created. -- Eastmain (talk) 14:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm okay with it.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Such lists are finite and verifiable, therefore cannot be termed as indiscriminate pieces of information. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:03, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into List of shopping malls in India#Punjab--Redtigerxyz (talk) 17:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to somewhere appropriate if such a place can be found... else Keep. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 00:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep But these types of information can be useful sometimes and sometimes grossly misused as spams. Title is keep worthy. --GPPande talk! 10:27, 22 October 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 02:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vihang A Naik

First of all - violation as per WP:YOURSELF. Author might be notable poet, but article contains tremendous WP:PEACOCK terms like India’s leading Indian English young poet and many many more. Article speaks nothing about poetry or work but how other people has praised him. The entire article is nothing more than WP:SPAM as it does more of advertisement than provide encyclopedic information. GPPande talk! 11:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I had actually speedied this before but that was challenged.--CyberGhostface (talk) 15:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 19:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/India. --GPPande talk! 10:39, 22 October 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 01:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article as it is now, certainly. This is a pretty ultimate peacock. I looked at the reviews: they're either blogs, or they are postings on a blog by the author of supposed reviews published elsewhere. And the tone, the phrases, brrr. Drmies (talk) 02:43, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After a couple of hours of editing: this guy is NOT a notable poet. He has three books whose value I cannot establish, the most recent one reviewed in questionable terms by people whose authority I cannot ascertain. All his articles are from a stint with a paper in the spring of 1997, and all the rest (but one) is in totally minor publications. After cutting the fluff, and seeing through the verbosity, there isn't much left, and there will be even less when I delete the irrelevant parts from the biography. Drmies (talk) 04:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment since the reliable sources & real content all seem to be about his poem, not him, a move to Making a Poem & deletion of the extraneous content is probably the correct action. So Keep, without prejudice to editorial fixes needed. Wily D 10:51, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very Weak keep after editing. But certainly not move to the title of one of his works which happens to be the only one yet translated into English. If he had only written (or published) one poem, then there might have been a reason for that, though even here I'd stick to the poet. DGG (talk) 03:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So--what to do with that long list of works he's published which are just non-notable, period? Delete it? The article is still much longer than subject's notability warrants (I also am not in favor of moving it to an article just for that one book, which, BTW, wasn't translated--he wrote it in English). Drmies (talk) 15:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the work is notable - or might get notable in future - be rest assured that some one would write about the "work" at that time. As of now full article has to go - as all are non-notable --GPPande talk! 16:41, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable autobio. --Crusio (talk) 00:21, 26 October 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 01:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RFID Guardian

Fails notability. Describes a single university project but notability not established (nor even attempted). The creator and only significant contributor is called User:RFIDchip and has not contributed to any other pages, indicating a WP:SPA with a WP:COI. Peter Ballard (talk) 11:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it's rather necessary and big article. And there is one interwiki-link.--X093i (talk) 15:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC) — X093i (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep Although there is a WP:COI here, I think that the article can be salvaged. It needs to be wiki'd and have all the WP:SPAM portions removed. I found these sources that could be used. [25] [26] [27] [28]... The technology will, as the years go by, be a part of society and have a definitive impact, in my opinion. With a re-write, and sources, I feel it passes WP:V and WP:N. --Pmedema (talk) 17:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - I've no doubt this sort of technology will continue to be important. But the article is not about the technology, it is about a specific product. When you strip away the RFID background stuff (which is already elsewhere) and the COI-loaded product description, there's almost nothing else, perhaps an external link which which could be added to RFID. Peter Ballard (talk) 23:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 07:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- - I went through the RFID article and this peticular technology/project is unique in what it will do. Funny how things happen... I was driving into work this morning (Toronto) and the radio talk show (AM 1010) was talking about the RFID technology and the "jamming" and "sencing" of the signals. I'm all for perhaps moving this article to a more appropriate name? The RFID article is getting pretty big... We could also split the "Security" portion out of that and merge it with this.... Just thinking of ideas.--Pmedema (talk) 13:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A Google News Archive search shows clear notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and remove spam. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 22:44, 22 October 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 01:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kotava

AfDs for this article:

Seems to be a made up constructed language. No independent reliable source proves notability. All sources are self-publications. No results on Google Scholar:[29]. It was deleted on de-wiki (de:Wikipedia:Löschkandidaten/10. Juli 2007#Kotava (gelöscht)) and es-wiki (es:Wikipedia:Consultas de borrado/Kotava). See also: pt:Wikipedia:Páginas para eliminar/Kotava. Tosqueira (talk) 11:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The fact that Kotava has an ISO code should do the trick. I would also like to point out that deletion in another wikipedia project should by no means be treated as an argument for deletion here, neither should deletion three years ago be treated as an argument to delete something now (things can have changed, like, in this case, the ISO code). For your information, Tosqueira, "made up" is in itself not an argument for deletion. Just like Shakespeare wrote made-up sonnets and Spielberg created made-up movies, some people create made-up languages. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 12:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It needs independent reliable sources. If no one else wrote about it, it fails notability because it has not received significant coverage in in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I couldn't find anything on Google Scholar. If no academic wrote anything about it (other than the one who invented) I believe it is not notable. Don't compare Shakespeare or Spielberg to an WP:OR. Tosqueira (talk) 12:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OR refers to an article, not to a subject. What you call "made up" refers to the subject. Shakespeare's sonnets, Beethoven's symphonies and Spielberg's movies are equally "made up" as a constructed language. Esperanto and Quenya are also made up (the latter even in school, I believe). So? Does that make them unnotable as well? Look, personally I'm far from enthousiastic about Kotava and the way it's promoted by its followers. But the fact that it does have an ISO code makes it notable enough for inclusion - that's one of the very few things everybody agreed about during previous discussions about the notability of constructed languages. I'd also like to add that the term "made up" strikes me a slightly offensive. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 13:03, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Shakespeare's sonnets, Beethoven's symphonies and Spielberg's movies are equally "made up", but they are notable because they have enough independent reliable sources. If there's no independent media coverage, or at least independent academic coverage, it means that there is no independent source = no notability. Tosqueira (talk) 03:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So basically you admit that the statement in the nomination that it was made up was pointless. Can we stop discussing it, then?--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of reliable sources and lack of notability. While deletion on other wikis doesn't necessarily mean much, the fact that it didn't pass AFD here in 2005 is quite telling... since our standards have tightened up enormously since 2005, there are few if any articles that would have failed our standards then but match them now. In any case, no reliable sources = no article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: according to WP:PROBLEM, lack of reliable sources is a reason to improve an article, not to delete it. Besides, this is a reference as good as a reference can get. I don't understand your last argument. In fact you are saying: Because the article was deleted back in 2005, it should be deleted now as well. If so, does that mean that all those comments used in AFD discussions of the type "As for now, the subject lacks notability, but by all means try again once something changes" are to be disregarded in the future? For the record, you may have noticed that I "voted" delete in that discussion. In this case, I believe there is reason enough to vote differently now. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 15:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes an unsourced article can be saved by scouring for sources, but this isn't the case here. There's been plenty of time to fix this up, and it hasn't happened. This is as good as this article is going to get, and it's still unacceptable. And yes, Wikipedia is collectively getting tired of desperate attempts to keep terrible articles under the promise, pleading, and pinky-swearing to find sources and fix it up real good, real soon... which 99.999% of the time doesn't happen and the article just gets deleted a few weeks later anyway. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent reliable sources -> no notability -> no article. If an ISO represents a presumption of notability, I could see holding off for reliable sources to appear, but I'm not aware of a policy or guideline that asserts that for constructed languages, or any consensus decision on it at all. Is there one? gnfnrf (talk) 20:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:CONLANG. Since every natural language with an ISO code - even languages with no speakers (anymore) - are considered notable enough for an article, the same would also go for constructed languages. Mind, there aren't that many of those at all. See ISO, SIL, and BCP language codes for constructed languages. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 20:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link. There is a whole lot of discussion and not much consensus there. Perhaps there's one spot where everyone comes together, but I didn't see it, plus the whole thing pretty clearly failed to come up with guidelines. However, it did get me interested in what the ISO codes actually mean, and now I'm puzzled. ISO 639-3 was published in 2007. That discussion was in 2005. How can assertions about notability implied from ISO language codes apply to ISO 639-3? Particularly since, as I have now learned (and please correct me if this is incorrect) unlike ISO 639-1 and ISO 639-2, which attempt to catalog major languages, "ISO 639-3:2007 attempts to provide as complete an enumeration of languages as possible, including living, extinct, ancient and constructed languages, whether major or minor, written or unwritten. As a result, ISO 639-3:2007 deals with a very large number of lesser-known languages." (quoted from [30]). That, to me, sounds like a denial of any assertion of notability by assigning an ISO 639-3 code. And in the absence of an active policy or guideline stating otherwise, I don't see it helping here.

As for natural languages with no speakers being notable, my hope is that they pass the general notability guidelines in that they are the subject of multiple non-trivial reliable third party sources, regardless of the number of speakers. And if Kotava had that, I'd be voting keep, regardless of the number of speakers. gnfnrf (talk) 21:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ISO 639-3 was around also before 2007. It included a fairly small number of languages that didn't have an ISO 639-2 code. As far as I can remember, it was pretty messy and mostly based on discussions on the Linguist list. In 2007 a new list was compiled, which didn't include a few that were on the list before and did include a few others. But the list is still fairly small. As for the "very large number of lesser-known languages": I really don't know how that will be achieved. The requirements are pretty high when it comes to printed publications in the language and that kind of stuff. It is fairly biased against fictional/artistic languages in favour of auxlangs. Besides, how do we define a language? How complete must a language be to be "language" enough for an ISO code? The number of constructed languages with a dictionary of over, say, 50000 entries is very, very small. So, I honestly don't know how Kotava got its ISO code, but the very fact alone proves that there is must be more than just one out of a very large number of lesser-known languages. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 22:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ISO 639-3 was approved in 2007. It has existed in some form for a long time--it's basically the Ethnologue. There's bunches and bunches of languages in there that aren't in ISO 639-2, and they've retired several codes since ISO 639-3 became a standard because it turns out the languages didn't exist. Kotava got its code because someone submitted the paperwork for it; see [31] for the associated paperwork. I don't think it having an ISO 639-3 code proves much beside the fact that someone was willing to ask for one.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; all ISO 639-2 language are notable because the LoC demands that some library hold 50 items in that language before adding it to ISO 639-2. An ISO 639-3 listing doesn't hurt notability, but it's at best a marginal notice, that need to be backed up by larger notices.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:49, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 19:57, 21 October 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 01:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Robert Olson

Missing notability. The article was proposed for deletion because of missing notability two times, the author allways removed the prod-template. I found this article through the image at Commons and I also have not found notability, but was advised to nominate the article for deletion instead of speedydeletion. --Martin H. (talk) 09:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless independent reliable sources can be found verifying that he is fact the producer of an Emmy Award winning show. If that is the case than notability would be established. However, a search has yielded no verifiable sources for that fact.Nrswanson (talk) 10:27, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The religious television program won the Emmy from the San Diego Chapter in 1985 and the Pacific Southwest Emmy Award in 2000, Jonathan Olson is not responsible for the Emmy but for the show today, maybe the the article is misleading here - but my english is too bad to reword it correctly. --Martin H. (talk) 11:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of notability. I did reword the Emmy sentence (and a few other things), but I cannot find independent verification of the two Emmys--which, by the way, were regional anyway, and don't carry as much weight as the national Emmy. So, since they were regional, and given to the program when the subject was -1 and 4 years old, respectively, and considering that I don't see winning regional Emmys is inheritable through the show, I see little notability left. There's also no verification of the Detroit prize--and I wonder how meaningful that was in the first place. Drmies (talk) 18:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 19:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 19:53, 21 October 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 01:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost Unit Mixtape

Non-notable mixtape with little or no media coverage. Fails WP:MUSIC#Albums. Prod removed without comment. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 09:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 09:23, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Commercial release by a notable artist. Has received some coverage [32]. I'm not really convinced about deleting articles on albums by notable artists, although deleting hip hop-related articles seems to be all the rage at the moment.--Michig (talk) 11:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:JANNMT (Just Another Non-Notable Mix Tape). Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 12:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom no evidence of non-trivial coverage from third parties. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 21:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Just Another Non-Notable Mix Tape, indeed. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 15:27, 21 October 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 01:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dermot McBride

~~Non-notable amateur sportsperson. Fails WP:BIO.~~ GNUSMAS : TALK 09:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Inter-county footballer. I've deleted some of the nonsense on the page, no need to delete the article now I feel. Derry Boi (talk) 10:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Gaelic Athletic Association sports do not have internationals, and senior inter-county competition is accepted as the highest-level for WP:ATHLETE. Sources demonstrate that the subject played for the Derry senior side. CJPargeter (talk) 12:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - i.e., I withdraw my nomination. I think I must have failed to see past the rubbish that was in the article at the time (thanks to Derry Boi for removing it) - and I thought it was just a vanity article. It is now much improved, and I realise that it satisfies the criteria for retention. GNUSMAS : TALK 12:59, 23 October 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Darren McKillion

Non-notable amateur sportsperson, fails WP:BIO. GNUSMAS : TALK 09:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:ATHLETE. Also, none of the references in the article actually mention the subject (incl. 1 dead link) --Flewis^(talk) 14:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Much text, little of it documenting anything significant. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 00:42, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Entirely not notable. Drmies (talk) 02:55, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:ATHLETE. Schuym1 (talk) 16:10, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:00, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:01, 25 October 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, no problem with a move/merge to the label or other appropriate target as consensus may determine. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 21:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Hit Crew

Non-notable sound-alike cover group. Non-neutral, no sources found. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I have no strong opinion on this one, but I suspect there's something salvagable here. Instead of an article on the "band", which may or may not pass WP:MUSIC, an article on the company itself, Drew's Famous might be more appropriate, as they almost certainly pass WP:CORP. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt it, I'm finding no sources for Drew's Famous either. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Believe it or not, they've sold some 30+ million CDs and at least one title has gone platinum. See this and this. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:11, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that works. A move to the label's name might work. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:20, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 08:45, 20 October 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 01:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of current Pro Wrestling Unplugged employees

No assertation of notability. Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pro Wrestling Unplugged. D.M.N. (talk) 08:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non notable company, which on the first place has no main article, so it's roster is nothing more.--S _R X 21:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and SRX. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the company couldn't establish notability, so their championship definitely can't. Nikki311 01:20, 22 October 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 Discussion of whether to merge with Aspartame is a separate matter. Consensus is clear that this material shouldn't be deleted. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:48, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aspartame controversy

POV fork of Aspartame in order to vent junk science and provide a fringe forum. While some criticism is valid, it is and can be covered in the Aspartame article. DHeyward (talk) 08:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree that this reads like a WP:POVFORK of Aspartame, but I'm wondering if this is actually a legitimate article split (if the section was too bulky in the main article) that has, over time, become full of anti-aspartame PoV. Perhaps this article just needs trimming of PoV and, if that results in a large amount of it being removed, being merged back into the appropriate section of Aspartame. I'll wait for any opinions from people more involved in the article. ~ mazca ^t|c 09:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, per the comments below Keep seems reasonable, though this needs a vigorous de-PoVing. There is a controversy with valid points on both sides, so once properly balanced this is a valid article split - there's plenty of sourced info here already to build on. ~ mazca ^t|c 12:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Aspartame. It's a fork. Alexius08 (talk) 09:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's not a fork, but an application of summary style. If it is to be merged back into aspartame, someone will have to trim it to a reasonable length. Will that happen within 5 days? I doubt it. In any case, the merging can be handled via the normal editing process and doesn't require deletion. --Itub (talk) 09:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but maybe neutralise again. There is enough material about this to make it a regular article (there are quite some about controversies related to medicine, medical procedures, food additives). If merged into the main article again (where it indeed was forked out), the information will again disperse through that article, with that section keeping to grow. IMHO, if there are enough people that feel that that subject needs to be expanded to such an extend as it has been in the history in aspartame, then it warrants an own article. Whether outside or inside the aspartame article, it will be a long-lasting fight to keep it neutral. Aspartame is about the chemical compound, and its properties and uses, not about the controversies along it (that should have just a small section, pointing to the main article). I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a Comment: The articles aspartame and aspartame controversy both are huge, having respectively 22 and 89 references (5 overlapping). I think that that shows that the latter does have quite a merit to be a valid article (I did not check if there were duplicate references in those 89, but a quick scan of the pubmed numbers did not show any obvious duplicates). The latter really has to be trimmed down to 2-3 paragraphs will it be suitable to fit into aspartame again. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not a pov fork. Aspartame is not the same thing as the controversy over it. This is the appropriate place for the criticism of the chemical and rebuttals to it. The controversy was notable enough that merging would be unnatural. Isolating such controversy articles is a good way of presenting information the way most readers would want it - the mainstream consensus or undisputed views in the main article, and other views mainly presented in the controversy article, instead of making the main article unreadable. Neutralization should be performed by normal, and if necessary, bold editing, not deleting encyclopedic topics. Wikipedia should provide a forum for junk science, and for invalid fringe criticism -- if the rest of the world already has -- if it is clearly notable, sourced junk.John Z (talk) 10:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up - Needs balancing, but this is a major area of discussion. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep There is plenty of scope to discuss and describe the Aspartame controversy, and not all of that discussion belongs on the main Aspartame page. If there is junk science on the controversy page, that page needs to be fixed. Merging it won't solve anything. --Slashme (talk) 12:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Major, ongoing area of discussion, with plenty of non-trivial (and, I might add, non-fringe) sources. To merge with the main article would render the main too long. Any other considerations are content issues, not AFD-related. 23skidoo (talk) 13:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research by synthesis; pov fork. The article is a platform for the "vocal activism" it describes. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up. --Banime (talk) 13:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Look at the real science of the chemical formula of this drug called aspartame compared to a barbiturate:

Aspartame C14 H18 N2 O5 Phenobarbital C12 H12 N2 O3

As you can see, there are only slight differences in the number of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen atoms in a molecule of aspartame vs. phenobarbital. Phenobarbital DOES pass through the blood-brain barrier, which gives it its properties of anesthesia, hypnosis, and sedation. The claim that aspartame does not pass through the blood-brain barrier is thus pure hogwash (to put it mildly), as its chemical formulae is nearly identical to phenobarbital. Thus the effects of aspartame in the brain are real; it affects the entire mechanism of hunger and thirst as it is a powerful drug which is chemically similar in formula to Phenobarbital. People can become confused about hunger and thirst sensations under the influence of a powerful psychotic drug, by "crossing the wires" of different senses. This is not about "junk science", it is about "junk business", more specifically selling junk as business. How much money is behind the attempt to remove any controversy about aspartame? All the money in the world that wants to steamroll over opposition to selling anything to anybody, with no government interference. The mantra that "all regulation is bad" is all over this attempt to muzzle free speech. The only way aspartame can even be sold is if strong regulation is watered down, which is how it got approved in the first place. The stuff look like Phenobarbital, which is called "truth serum", and if phenobarbital can "cross people's wires" so they can be knocked out or put into hypnotic trances then it aspartame sure as hell can have similar effects...as the chemical formulas are nearly identical. Wake up people!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.200.28 (talk) 13:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The above comment, which I've added the 'unsigned' tag to and now moved to its correct chronological spot in this discussion, is a good example of bad science; it's almost parodically inaccurate. A rudimentary understanding of organic chemistry could expose the errors. For clarity, I'd emphasise that I do think aspartame is unpleasant and possibly unhealthy, and that I do think this article should be kept; but I don't think it should be kept because I'm critical of aspartame, and that I don't believe in the validity of pseudoscience like the above. (If anyone cares, obv.) AlexTiefling (talk) 14:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree entirely with AlexTiefling here. As tempting as it is to write a lengthy and hilarious rebuttal of the concept of "the empirical formulae are similar so the effects must be too", this is not the place for this argument - there are valid reasons to keep this article outside of the legitimacy of aspartame's criticism - whether founded in good science or misconceptions. ~ mazca ^t|c 14:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability and sourcing appear to be unquestionable, and the article is too big to really be merged anywhere. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Aspartame, which could use some expansion anyway. As for length, this could use some trimming, but the controversy is about as famous as the substance itself. Cosmic Latte (talk) 17:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as a merge would only cause detrimental edit wars to the overall Article that I believe would detract from the positions put forth by both Articles as separate Articles. Yes, I would encourage Editors watchlist both if they are involved with one, but we are here to inform and spread Wikilove :), not to purposely instigate revert wars.. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 00:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article with 90 references is too long to merge. Perhaps rename to "Criticism of ..." or similar, and provide a WP:SUMMARY in the main article. VG ☎ 07:19, 21 October 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:29, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rajiasar

Even though locations are normally inherently notable, this article is poorly written, uncategorized, contains no inline citations or references for WP:V. Also contains no inbound links from other articles. Flewis^(talk) 06:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- I disagree with your assertion that locations are inherently notable. But you're right about there being no sources, and I can't find anything suitable on Google. Reyk _YO! 07:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 23:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable village. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep By definition, as acknowledged by the nominator, real communities are inherently notable. Can we find sources to verify that it exists? If not, this could be deleted as a hoax; but the problems mentioned by the nominator are only problems that need cleanup, not deletion. Nyttend (talk) 19:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's an inhabited community[33][34], the sort of thing that encyclopedias exist to write about, and an encyclopedia that is not paper can cover even the smallest communities. Poor writing and lack of categorisation and inbound links are reasons for editing, not deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Real places are inherently notable and Phil has show it is a real place. Edward321 (talk) 23:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Claim of schools is verifiable. Not all villages have schools in India. Docku:“what up?” 23:52, 21 October 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 01:29, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BrainWashington

Contested prod. Neologism, and not one that has caught on sufficiently to warrant a wikipedia article. Apparently created several years ago, but registering only about 1700 English language non-WP ghits, which seems pretty low if it has gained much acceptance. The term may be used in German, which it is claimed, but certainly doesn't seem to have much usage in English. There also appears to be significant conflict of interest - the website linked to has the same name as the creator of this article, who is also named User:BrainWashington. It is more than possible, given the coincidence of names, that this is at least partly intended as an ad. Delete. Grutness...wha? 06:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: unsourced neologism created by a user with conflict of interest. Alexius08 (talk) 09:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Obviously COI and original research at work here. This probably could have been speedy deleted.Nrswanson (talk) 10:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - an attempt to popularize a relatively unused neologism. Fails WP:NEOLOGISM. --Flewis^(talk) 14:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obvious neologism. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per above. Tatarian (talk) 14:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as is 1. Self-promotion is not the purpose. My real name and identity are posted nowhere on wikipedia and are not promoted in the source materials. My own site promotes the work of other authors I have never even met. I am offering an entry for historical usage. The popularity of a term has nothing to do with the veracity. As for the claim of advertisement, there is no advertising. There are no solicitations for money or material gain, no calling attention to any profitable business or enterprise. The term is used in songs, in newspapers and magazines, and in other media that some of the editors of wikipedia would not consider "mainstream." Is that the real reason you want the article deleted? As for neologism, I did not claim to coin this word and the word has been in use at least since 2001. There is not a single objection to the veracity and accuracy of the article itself, so it should stand. Bait and switch? Some are calling for DELETE when they could call for EXPAND. Is there really a cause to delete a definition of a real word used widely by real people who have no connection to the entry author?Brainwashington —Preceding undated comment was added at 05:11, 21 October 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 List of characters in the Soul series. MBisanz ^talk 01:29, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Siegfried (Soulcalibur)

While a major protagonist in the series, Siegfried has not been emphasized as a stand-alone character from his Nightmare persona until recent games. As a result, there is little reception for him when not Nightmare, who by comparison as a character has more citable material. Article has additionally not been worked on with a direction of improvement for the subject in quite some time. Proposing to merge what can be salvaged into Nightmare's article and removal of remaining trivial material. Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MuZemike (talk) 05:49, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as nomination is actually a proposal to merge rather than delete, and I'm not at all convinced this character shouldn't be kept anyway, as he's the protagonist of a very notable series, featured in ads and the box art, etc. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Heartily endorse massive trimming and reorganization of the whole series of character articles (basically a merge !vote). List of characters in the Soul series is a complete and utter mess right now, along with the rest of the character articles. This particular article is filled to the brim with OR in a vain attempt to meet WP:WAF (e.g. a "Creation and conception" containing nothing more than an excessively detailed physical description). The remainder have similar problems and I'd wager the whole lot can be better condensed into one, maybe two articles. Nifboy (talk) 16:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - The article does not establish notability, so it doesn't need to exist. TTN (talk) 18:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per common sense. JuJube (talk) 18:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge - It's obvious that Siegfried is important, however the current idea of merging with Nightmare is flawed at best. I think it would be better for them to share a page together like Siegfried on one half and Nightmare in the other. Like Nifboy said though, the list of characters needs serious cleanup. DynamoDT (talk) 18:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem comes up though how do you describe Nightmare without Siegfried? One character ends up in effect repeating everything the other says to a point, then they diverge. I'm not sure if there's really another thing to compare this to (Venom/Eddie Brock maybe, but even then the new hosts have histories of their own).--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's why they would be merged together should that path be chosen, since it's an easy place to refer to. They're only together in SC1 and SC2, but in every other Soulcalibur game, they're separate, even Soulcalibur Legends. Having them share a page with different sections shows that they're both the same and different at the same time. I think more people would be happier this way than have one character overshadow the other because it feels like you're just leaving out important necessary information.DynamoDT (talk) 22:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Dynamo, to clarify something, to have a joint article the real-world content would really need to support both. As it stands though it doesn't: it primarily supports Nightmare, and really only with IV does it actually start to focus on Siegfried.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 10:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Actually, Soulcalibur III, IV, and Legends all shift the focus towards Siegfried, and take great pains in establishing the two as separate characters. But irreguardless, you want to redirect all references from Siegfried to Nightmare on the precept of, "once the same, always the same." With great reservation, I vote a merge on this. That Siegfried appeared in the series before Nightmare in the series almost demands that they have separate articles, but there are far too many users here willing to fight that to the bitter end citing "notability".--199.79.10.117 (talk) 12:10, 21 October 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. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guillermo López Langarica

Potentially controversial, so I brought to AfD rather than speedy. Happy for others to correct me. Non-notable internet "celebrity" whose death was briefly featured on the news. Deadly∀ssassin 05:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you serious??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ej.valdes (talk • contribs) 05:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - While this article may require cleanup, a simple Google search established the following references (which essentially rule out lack of notability) [35][36][37][38][39]. For a notability guideline re internet celebrities see here: List of YouTube celebrities. Otherwise, I suggest someone with a good grip on Spanish to include some extra citations within the article. --Flewis^(talk) 06:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't seem to be a policy or guideline, but just a list of articles that currently exist, which seems to be an Wikipedia:Other stuff exists kind of argument. Why would the previoudly quoted WP:BLP1E not apply to this? --Deadly∀ssassin 01:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last time I checked, "Biographies of living persons" don't apply to the deceased. --Flewis^(talk) 03:13, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but that wording also appears in Notability (People). --Deadly∀ssassin 04:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He seems to have been notable, sad story however. Steve Dufour (talk) 07:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep With the references found by DeadlyAssassin article meets WP:NB cf38^talk 09:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Especially after the new references. --Banime (talk) 13:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Presumed Keep taken from the article's talk page - I really don't think this article should be deleted, since there are other lesser YouTube celebrities who have their own articles, and I don't believe someone who made it to most major news anchors and newspapers in Mexico is 'non-important'. In such case, all YouTube celebrities are 'non-important' and should only be named in the YouTube main article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ej.valdes (talk • contribs) 05:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC) (added by Flewis^(talk) 14:23, 20 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just enough sustained RS interest in what happened to him. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clear case of WP:BLP1E. Will be forgotten in another couple of weeks. --Crusio (talk) 17:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment above - this guy is no longer with us. I'm pretty sure that means he won't file a complaint to the wikimedia foundation, requesting that his bio be removed --Flewis^(talk) 03:13, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:BIO1E, which doesn't only apply to living people. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:56, 21 October 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. I have declined to salt it, since in general, pages are not protected preemptively. If it is continually recreated, file a request on WP:RFPP. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 00:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Di Leo

This article was brought up as a possible instance of paid editing; after looking it over and seeking out references, I don't feel the person in question is notable under WP:MUSIC. The subject is claimed to have a solo CD, as well as a "hit song" with a previous band... well, the "hit song" turns up less than 30 Google hits, which a hit from 1995 should probably surpass. He himself gets a couple thousand hits... but there are definitely other people using the name Paul Di Leo, which adds to the challenge of sifting through and turning up results for him. The record label the album is on does not appear to be notable. This article does have a number of paper references, but it doesn't really indicate how any of them refer to the subject himself. All told, and combined with the likely paid editing (see the COIN thread above for details), this article is definitely problematic. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per nom. You just beat me to it. Themfromspace (talk) 04:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Take out Wikipedia and its mirrors, and a search for "Luscious Love" "Imitation of Life" comes up with 10 Google hits, none of them a reliable source. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 04:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:MUSIC. "Paid editing" is also a concern - this article may only seek promotional value for the organization involved.--Flewis^(talk) 06:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC.Nrswanson (talk) 10:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:MUSIC. Tatarian (talk) 15:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt. Fails WP:MUSIC and was almost certainly a paid article. That being said, if it's deleted, I bet it will come right back. Undead Warrior (talk) 15:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:MUSIC, paid editing. --John Nagle (talk) 16:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Personally I could care less about the paid editing (as long as it was within the bounds of NPOV language) but regardless of all that it still fails WP:MUSIC and the buck stops there. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 21:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Decidedly off-key in regard to WP:MUSIC. But I agree with Coccyx -- the off-Wiki machinations that gave birth to this article are not relevant to the article's basic Wiki-based problems. Ecoleetage (talk) 23:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt to prevent its recreation until it can be shown that notability concerns are addressed. AKRadecki^Speaketh 02:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 19:44, 21 October 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 01:28, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Major League Baseball Draft

this is non-encyclopedic and basically just a place holder until the draft in June 2009 actually takes place. Wolfer68 (talk) 04:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. MuZemike (talk) 14:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep does not violate crystal ball. Yes, the draft has not happened yet, but media surrounding the draft is happening. Keep it.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Date's been announced, draft order is set, enough content is available for this upcoming event.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While it is a future draft, it is the next draft, and there is verifiable information available. Reso lute 18:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 19:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:CRYSTAL, this is acceptable because it is a notable, scheduled event that will almost certainly take place. — X96lee15 (talk) 23:41, 21 October 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 01:28, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese strategic thought

So many problems including no justification for the pages actual existence. Is this just something to interlink other pages? Kickstart70-T-C 04:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The topic is too vague. For one thing, nations can not think, only individual people can. Steve Dufour (talk) 07:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with no prejudice against writing a better article later. As it currently stands, this article is like an unsourced essay with a link farm attached. A good article might be possible, but this is not it.--Danaman5 (talk) 08:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.Nrswanson (talk) 10:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's the meandering of a parrot. There's nothing substantive. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 11:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We had a bunch of these types of nominations recently, take whatever information possible to use in other strategy articles and Delete. --Banime (talk) 13:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
...five different tags on it? Sorry, but delete per Danaman5 and Trek. —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 15:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Steve, Trek. What a meaningless entry. TheAsianGURU (talk) 17:15, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 19:42, 21 October 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. Cirt (talk) 06:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LGeneral

I do not see any evidence that this game is notable; it fails Wikipedia:Notability. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MuZemike (talk) 05:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Could you go into more detail about the ways you've looked for references? It'd make it faster and easier for the rest of us. --Kiz o r 07:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This appears to be an expansion pack of Panzer General. Fails WP:Game expansions. Many of the references do not provide any information on the subject whatsoever. Suggest deleting and including some of the content in the main article --Flewis^(talk) 07:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion pack? There is a difference between an expansion pack and a remake. This is the latter. Not really germane since it doesn't pass notability as it's own game either. 85.166.78.90 (talk) 12:29, 22 October 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 01:28, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Panzer General and leave a link to the remake in the external links there. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:57, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Delete per WP:N and WP:sources. This game is a non-notable remake of Panzer General, not an expansion. The link to MobyGames has no mention of LGeneral. EconomistBR 03:07, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've twice failed to turn up the reliable reviews needed to demonstrate notability. Opposed to including any mention of this in Panzer General, if it's not notable in its own right then fans of the game shouldn't be encouraged to hijack the article of a notable game, even those operating in good faith can cause endless games of sillybuggers over external links etc. Someone another 13:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. That is remake is not even in Mobbygames is a great sign that it fails any notability. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:19, 28 October 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. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 00:51, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mitchell Gaulton

Non-notable junior league hockey player; fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:HOCKEY's project notability guidelines as not only not having played in a "fully professional" league, his odds of doing so aren't good. Article erroneously asserts that he plays for the New York Rangers, when in fact he's an oft-injured reserve defenseman who has yet to play for his junior team this season. Prod removed by article creator without comment. RGTraynor 04:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletion discussions. RGTraynor 04:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC) [reply]
Delete per WP:BIO, WP:N, and per nom. Player has never played in a professional league, and while he was drafted by the Rangers (in the 6th round), he certainly does not play for them. Reso lute 04:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Resolute. If he makes the NHL one day, then he can have an article. Kaiser matias (talk) 06:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails to meet WP:ATHLETE. -Djsasso (talk) 13:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: He fails WP:ATHLETE. Schuym1 (talk) 13:21, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and remake if he makes it in the NHL --Banime (talk) 13:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Team Ontario is not a top-level amateur team, nor is the OHL a league sufficient for notability. —C.Fred (talk) 16:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails all notability standards, article can be recreated when he plays professionally. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 21:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per all of above. I over-enthusiastically put a speedy tag on this yesterday, agree that notability is not yet proven. JNW (talk) 00:06, 21 October 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 Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Polish Music Charts

It was previously deleted under Polish National Top 50 (see its AfD here). Nothing has changed since then, as it still appears to be OR/WP:HOAX. No one outside of Euro200 is saying that it is legitimate and/or notable. Note: I speedy'd this under G4 but it was rejected. Side note: I noticed that the #1 Hits from 2006 and 2007 are nominated for deletion as well. SKS2K6 (talk) 03:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC) (WITHDRAWN; please see below.)[reply]

KEEP The Polish National Top 50 ain't the same thing jackass, thats two different charts. There are two other Polish Music Charts at the external link section how the hell haven't you seen that. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 05:13, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CIVIL. Schuym1 (talk) 12:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unverifiable, unofficial chart. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:....Anyway. The reason I nominated it is because Polish National Top 50 redirects here, and it also lists the top albums AND singles. I have looked through the links, and it appears that the album chart is legitimate, but not the singles chart. Therefore, I shall remove any references to the singles chart, but keep it as an album chart. Please note that the redirect should be deleted, however, as it refers to the singles chart. (mods? :D). SKS2K6 (talk) 18:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can't we just move the page to Polish Albums Chart if its legitimate? --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 20:08, 20 October 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:27, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...Baby One More Time Tour

AfDs for this article:

Just a tour, isn't really much more than a setlist and list of tour dates. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 03:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment On first sight it seems neither better nor worse than other 'xxx Tour' articles - both for this and other artists - (and to be honest, there's not much else you can write about a concert tour unless it turns into a Spinal Tap-esque fiasco, is there). It is unsourced (but again that's hardly exceptional for tour articles it seems). MadScot (talk) 03:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - But just because other stuff exists does not mean it should stay. Likewise, just becuase it is a tour article doesn't mean that it's okay for it to be unsourced. I think that you're getting to the heart of the problem with most tour articles, and to that point I agree with you very much. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 03:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with MadScot, there isn't much to write about a tour unless something Spinal Tap-esque happens. Which is why it is so hard to find any WP:RS to establish any sort of notability. Article fails to meet WP:GNG. I'm voting for delete rather than redirect because I feel the article name is a non-plausible search term. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 12:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is about an obviously verified concert tour. The Tour was notable as the first tour of a obviously notable singer. No offence... but your Delete argument sounds more like WP:IDONTLIKEIT.--Pmedema (talk) 18:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiable is not the same thing as notable. Likewise, your argument that the artist is notable doesn't apply, since notability is not inherited. The tour ITSELF has to be notable, not just the artist on the tour. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 18:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it was notable as "Spears' first solo national tour", Sponsored by Tommy Hilfiger and the performed songs were from her "debut album". --Pmedema (talk) 19:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But the reasons your giving are all other notable things that don't inherently make this tour notable. The fact that it is her first tour is not inherently notable. By that logic, just about any notable artist's first tour would be notable, which they are not. Likewise, the fact that it was in support of her first album, as the notability of that album cannot be transferred to this tour. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 20:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 19:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to a lack of non-trivial coverage by reliable third party sources. Sites like "britneyspears.org" and press releases are obviously not such. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 21:24, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are news sources that mention this tour (quite a few actually). And there had to have been reviews of this. Seriously. Maybe paper-only, but there is no way this didn't get reviews in local papers. Hobit (talk) 01:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - But the question is non-trivial coverage. There's no question that it was written about, but generally reviews are considered trivial. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 01:27, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No? Reviews are great sources for things like this. Not sure how an article in a newspaper on a topic can be trivial coverage of that topic. Hobit (talk) 12:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. This was a major tour by a major popular artist. Spears's tours, including this one, have been key to the development of her image at different stages of her career. Yes, the article needs to be improved, to describe more of the artistic aspects of the show, and the commercial results of the tour, and reviews that the show got. But it is definitely notable and AfD is not a suitable venue for it. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you support your arguments by citing reliable, independent third party sources which provide non-trivial coverage of this tour? coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 18:06, 23 October 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 01:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The M+M's Tour

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/The M+M's Tour

Non-Notable tour, only six dates and five songs. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 03:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Pretty easy to find sources on this one...just a select few: [40] [41][42][43][44][45] --Smashville^talk 18:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Added all the sources from above ^^ Thanks by the way. Enanoj1111 (talk) 22:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 19:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. This tour was a significant event in Spears' long public meltdown. It was written about extensively in the mainstream press. Our article on it has had problems with pov editing, such that the descriptions of the show and its brevity and its lip-synching have been watered down or removed altogether; they need to be restored, cited, watchlisted and maintained. But pov editing problems are not a reason for article deletion, otherwise we'd get rid of the Sarah Palin article too. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But our assertion seems to be that it's notable because of her public image at the time. Most of the coverage you are referencing is about her meltdown, not the tour itself. Also, I never brought up POV issues as a reason for deletion. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 19:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The tour itself was/is very notable. How can someone think that a 15-minute, carelessly lip-synched show is worth fans paying money to see? Spears' fans divided on this, which is among the things that the article can explore. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter how lip-synched a show is, unless it received substantial non-trivial coverage. Even then, I don't think that the simple fact that she lip-synched makes the tour notable, although it may deserve a mention in Britney Spears. Also, did you say that the shows were 15-minutes long and carelessly lip-synched? Sounds pretty non-notable to me. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 20:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's like saying we should delete the Ishtar (film) article because the movie was awful. Things can be notable for bad artistic quality as well as for good! Wasted Time R (talk) 20:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't. It's saying that there is nothing to suggest this tour was notable on it's own merit outside of Spears' fan base. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 20:22, 22 October 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. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 00:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GTA IV transport routes

Contested prod. This is a very minor aspect of Grand Theft Auto IV that will never get the coverage and content needed to support an article Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:23, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This content isnt notable and I would say that the content in its current form would be unsuitable for inclusion in the GTA4 article so merging isnt really an option here. This content is more suited for something like the GTA wiki. Seddσn ^talk ^{Editor Review} 07:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - useful information for a GTA4 game guide, but it's not encyclopedic material unless some aspect of them has actually been covered substantially in reliable sources. ~ mazca ^t|c 08:51, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:23, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a game guide and this article is more suitable in another Wikia. Zero Kitsune (talk) 14:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Game guide info. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a game guide. Pagra shtak 15:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Starblind. Article lacks context. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GAMECRUFT, WP:GAMEGUIDE and WP:N. Article has no context and is in essence a redundant game-guide list. L337 kybldmstr (talk) 02:12, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm surprised that (a) this was created in the first place, and (b) it hasn't already been deleted. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess) (talk) 19:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This belongs in a game guide, not on Wikipedia, as Pagrashtak said. Firebat08 (talk) 03:36, 23 October 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 Washington Mutual. MBisanz ^talk 01:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whoo hoo!

AfDs for this article:

Last month this slogan for failed bank Washington Mutual was nominated for deletion, but was kept in a no consensus decision. It has sources, but I think especially after WaMu's nosedive just days after the close of the first nom, sale to JPMorgan Chase and the bailout, things have changed and this slogan hasn't found further notability beyond the usual comics using the line as a punchline to bad jokes. I also don't forsee Chase using it as the words are forever tainted. Nate • (chatter) 00:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Multiple independent sources indicate notability. Umbralcorax (talk) 01:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Its a silly waste of time and resources to renominate an article for deletion a month after a previous failed nomination. Another mistake by nom is to confuse Wikipedia with Wikinews. The slogan doesn't have to be in the news on a daily basis for it to be considered notable. Once something is notable it stays notable. During its run, it was a renown slogan. Its fame is amply supported by the substantial media coverage, all the while the media does not usually give advertising slogans any significant coverage (due to conflict of interest problems). The worst case scenario is that the article info will be merged into Washington Mutual. However, the article's size is current the ideal, more information will be probably be added to the bank article, and there already are multiple conversations on the Talk:Washington Mutual regarding the article's size. In addition, an article about an advertising slogan is different than an article about a bank, thus making for an awkward merger. So let's just leave this article alone. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:27, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
concur to keep, campaign appears notable. MadScot (talk) 01:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Washington Mutual. It would actually make a good paragraph in the story of the company's last days. One problem with the article as it is now is that in several places Washington Mutual is spoken of as if it were an intelligent being. Steve Dufour (talk) 07:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - WP:IDONTLIKEIT] is not a valid reason to nomination an article for deletion. This article is contains a number of 3rd party sources, which rule out lack of notability --Flewis^(talk) 14:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Washington Mutual. This is not notable enough for an encyclopedia, fine for a blog or a Usenet post tho. -- Jeandré, 2008-10-20t20:05z
Redirect, after merging , I said delete the first time, but a compromise is fine. It was trivial then, and it hasn't gotten any more notable since. DGG (talk) 02:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 19:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 19:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Washington Mutual as part of the history of the bank holding company.Bigturtle (talk) 21:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - We strive to be an encyclopaedia of both historical and current topics. Bad speedy renom to boot. Wily D 13:27, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redir Same reasons as MacBook Air Ad being redired to MacBook Air. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 21:34, 22 October 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 01:21, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

J. D. Cronise

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, treelo _radda 00:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 00:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete per the nom, as a non-plausible search term. Fails to establish notability outside of the band per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 12:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[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 01:21, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

National Register of Historic Places featured properties and districts

Page does not belong in article space because there is no evidence of notability. There has been no third-party coverage regarding "featured properties and districts," and the article does not indicate what aspects of this list make it notable. In fact, not even the entity that has "featured" these properties (the National Park Service) has published anything about the reasons why it "features" certain properties or the basis for selecting these properties. (Note that the article says "The program was announced in July 2008", but the "source" for that statement is a note saying "Press releases, news coverage, other reports would be helpful to add here.") The only "coverage" of this list has been its existence -- that is, the appearance of a "featured" property at the top of each week's list of new NRHP listings. As far as I can tell, these are merely the properties that the NPS has put on the "cover" of its weekly electronic bulletin; I cannot discern anything noteworthy about this particular assemblage of items. Because the weekly lists contain extra information about the "featured" properties, the list is useful to NRHP wikiproject participants, but otherwise it appears to be an indiscriminate collection of information. Because it is a potentially useful resource for Wikipedians, it should be moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/National Register of Historic Places featured properties and districts. I feel silly bringing this here. The need to move this from article space to Wikiproject space has been discussed on the article talk page (and I in fact moved the page to Wikiproject space), but the creator of the article is adamant that it belongs in article space and essentially dared me to bring this here. Orlady (talk) 00:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

concur with nom. There appears to be no specific justification for the items on the list, and only the items on the list, and I don't see any third party coverage of the list elements as a list being likely. The comparison to e.g. Rolling Stone cover people is indeed telling in my opinion. Every publication has a front cover and thus some kind of featured content. But lumping it all together is only justified if third party sourtces already do so. MadScot (talk) 01:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Orlady (talk) 01:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose And i am fuming mad about this, so I shall not write much right now. No good purpose is served by putting this one NRHP list-article up for deletion. The deletion nominator has been unable to respond in discussion at the Talk page for the article, about why she would want to delete this and what purpose would be served. Her "answers" showed either an unwillingness or inability to understand the question, and only consisted of arguments--some specious in my view--that she could and has now used to put this article up for AfD. This editor has acknowledged following my contributions around, and this AfD nomination smells bad to me. I am resenting her following me around, her having derailed a Featured List nomination of mine for another list-article, her having caused other time-consuming processes on other article titles on my watchlist, and what seems to me to be her developing pattern of not ever conceding or backing down. To say that she "reluctantly" puts this up for AfD is a copout, in my view: she definitely did not have to and should not be causing this process to happen now.

There is not a plague of list-articles being created frivolously--this is not a promotional article about a local garage band. It is a particular collection of recent NRHP listings that is not hurting anyone. For it to be nominated to featured list, say, I would agree that it would require some more background work. I ask for the nominator to assist in finding documentation to describe the program better. Also, a different alternative would be simply to rename the article, as I suggested at its Talk page. I'll stop now. doncram (talk) 02:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has been repeatedly determined that individual NRHP sites are wikipedia notable. There were at last count, 527 list-articles of NRHP sites, and I don't see the criteria available to evaluate that this one alone should be deleted. doncram (talk) 02:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete and move to a subpage of WP:NRHP if the project wants it. I don't see the point of this, but may be convinced otherwise by good arguments. (Disclaimer: I got here from WT:NRHP.) --NE2 02:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete As it is, there's no problem with the date: it's rather obvious from the main National Register listing page that they began this program in July, as the listings begin then. I understand and appreciate the bit about Sports Illustrated covers, etc., but this seems too trivial of a topic unless it attracts attention from the third-party sources. I can't imagine that a list of United States Senators appearing in the "Hill" would necessarily satisfy the criteria, even though The Hill is a leading US congressional publication and though the senators are obviously notable. I like the topic, and it's interesting (and I've received much help from the creator), but to have an article about it without further sources seems to go a little too far. Nyttend (talk) 03:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no question that this "featuring" of newly listed properties began in July 2008. My problem was with the statement that "the program" was "announced" then, as no one has been able to produce evidence that this is a "program" or that said program was ever "announced." The "program was announced" language is no longer in the article, however. --Orlady (talk) 03:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Orlady says that there has been no "coverage" and sends us to indiscriminate collection of information where it specifically notes that having news coverage does not automatically make something noteworthy. Therefore, whether there was "coverage" or not seems a moot point. Inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places automatically confers notability. It follows logically for me that being featured by them would automatically confer a slightly higher degree of interest and notability. This list just recognizes that elevation in interest, slight as it may be. I like the list. Lvklock (talk) 04:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, having news coverage does not automatically make a topic notable, but that is not the issue here. This is a topic that apparently has not had coverage in the news or anywhere else. The general notability guideline says "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." This business of "featuring" a property is a topic that has apparently never received even insignificant coverage in sources that are dependent of the subject, much less significant coverage in independent sources.

Yes, there has been consensus that listing of a property or district in the National Register of Historic Places automatically confers WP:notability, but that does not mean that everything related to the National Register is automatically notable. In essence, this is nothing more than a list of the lead articles in a weekly newsletter. In a comment I wrote last week on the article talk page, I commented that this is similar to a list of magazine covers, and I noted that Wikipedia includes List of celebrities who have appeared on the cover of Rolling Stone magazine, List of Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue cover models, Sports Illustrated#Cover history, and Saturday Night Live hosts, but that those topics are arguably notable due to the existence of significant third-party coverage of SNL hosts and Rolling Stone and Sports Illustrated covers. Since there is no evidence that anyone other than Wikipedia contributors has found anything noteworthy in the new NRHP practice of featuring one property out of the week's list of two or three dozen newly listed properties, it is difficult to see why this particular collection is a notable topic for a list.

As for your comments that "it follows logically for me that being featured ... would automatically confer..." and "I like it," please see WP:OR and WP:ILIKEIT. --Orlady (talk) 03:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how my explaining why I think the article should be included can possibly be construed as original research. As far as liking it, I did not intend that as a reason for keeping the article, but just as a passing comment on it. I notice that you did not refer Nyttend to WP:ILIKEIT when he commented above that he liked the article and it was interesting, perhaps because he he was just making a passing comment on his appreciation of the article. Lvklock (talk) 20:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have problems with minor factual matters in the deletion nominator's statements:

as noted by Nyttend, the nominator questions the source of the July date but the July date is well enough supported. On that point, the nominator questions the article on the basis of an informational footnote asking for help in getting more sources. It is an informational note, not a source footnote, when used in that way, obviously.

As noted above, I have no quarrel regarding the date that this started, but rather I object to the subject and verb of that sentence, where it is stated that "the program was announced." That statement (subsequently removed) and the associated footnote were added after I asked for evidence that this "featuring" business has WP:notability. --Orlady (talk) 03:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the deletion nominator states "not even the entity that has "featured" these properties (the National Park Service) has published anything about the reasons why it "features" certain properties or the basis for selecting these properties". That is likely a false statement. Neither I nor the deletion nominator has copies of such publications, but it is an overstatement to assert nothing exists. How would the deletion nominator know?

Perhaps that is a false statement, but the burden of evidence for providing sources (in this case, to demonstrate the notability of the topic) falls on the person who adds the material (see WP:PROVEIT). I hasten to add that if Wikipedia were to presume all topics notable until proven non-notable, it would be virtually impossible to delete articles about garage bands, 8th-grade football stars, and other non-notable topics, due to the philosophical dilemmas involved in trying to prove a negative.--Orlady (talk) 03:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the deletion nominator states "The only "coverage" of this list has been its existence -- that is, the appearance of a "featured" property at the top of each week's list of new NRHP listings." That is false, technically, if you consider that the NRHP program website homepage at http://www.nps.gov/nr/index.htm does indeed feature the weekly featured item, and if you consider that to be coverage of the featured items one by one. Cumulatively, that provides coverage of the entire list of them. This other coverage is mentioned in the article, although i had neglected to add the URL of the NRHP program homepage. Also, there may have been other coverage, not yet known to us.

A link on the NRHP homepage is not "independent coverage." The possible existence of "other coverage, not yet known to us" is one reason why I have proposed moving this page to project space. --Orlady (talk) 03:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've searched Google for instances of the word "featured" in connection with "National Register", properties, districts, etc. Essentially the only instances where the word "featured" was actually connected with NRHP listings were on NPS websites. Interestingly, in addition to the weekly listings reports, I found that the term "featured property" (and variants such as "featured site") has been used over the years in NPS press releases and educational materials for African American History Month,[46] Women's History Month,[47] Hispanic Heritage Month,[48][49] Native American Heritage Month,[50] and Asia-Pacific Heritage Month,[51] as well as in historic travel brochures like this one. In every case, the usage is in the journalistic sense, along the general lines of "this article features several interesting sites." --Orlady (talk) 00:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't assert that pointing out these minor factual issues greatly counters the deletion nominator's larger argument, but I feel that they potentially add up in a troubling, larger pattern of the nominator's critical-style editing. I am resenting the nominator's attack on this article, but not just for sake of this article in which i have not invested greatly. doncram (talk) 06:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, no personal attacks, please. It seems to me that you are the one who has been trying to make this personal. I saw this article at Category:National_Register_of_Historic_Places when I was looking for categories needing to be renamed, and I looked into it because "featured properties and districts" were something I had never heard of. I have an apparently-crazy notion that WP policies and guidelines have to be applied uniformly if they are going to be effective, so I went to the article talk page to ask for an explanation of the justification for including this in article space, and the answers I got led me to conclude that no such justification existed.

I suppose your theories regarding my motives have been influenced by messages on your talk page from the likes of User:69.86.225.195, but if that's the case, I hope you will consider the source. --Orlady (talk) 03:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My comment here was that you had made overstatements (and/or false statements) in arguing your case, not that there weren't arguments along the same lines that would have been more correct. A loaded term for this, which i have seen applied elsewhere in an offensive manner that I do mean to convey here, could be "sloppiness". Using overstatements and inaccurate statements in an effort to get an article deleted, to me tends to suggest the possibility that something is not right, that the deletion nominator has chosen one side and is committed to arguing it, right or wrong, rather than participating in good faith. I am attuned to this issue due to your edit summaries and talk page justifications of other reverts of my work that you have done, an issue which I have raised to you at your Talk page. The issue here is not whether there is or is not a kernel of a valid point in something in what you say, but rather it is in how you are saying it and seeming to pursue something resembling an attack. If there is a continuing pattern, then this set of statements might be used as evidence some other wikipedia process. Anyhow, I am choosing to label these mistatements, here, as what I see they are: mischaracterizations that suited your argument. It would help if you would disavow such tactics and perhaps apologize; you could do that simply without abandoning your argument. Anyhow, there does not need to be a big issue here, if there is not a continuing pattern of such behavior. Note, I labelled these instances as "minor". doncram (talk) 18:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Would deletion voters here clarify if they see a larger purpose in removing this list-article, out of the many NRHP list-articles? For just one type of example, what is the difference between this collection of NRHPs, vs. say National Register of Historic Places listings in Ozaukee County, Wisconsin? That is randomly picking one geographic area-based list from List of RHPs in WI, which is a state list system that i have worked on, but i have not been specifically involved in developing that Ozaukee list within it. Note, the National Register does not collect and present NRHP listings in the Ozaukee geographic area as an organized set, at least not in any linkable website or published document that I am aware of (i acknowledge that is likely one could get an on-demand report out of NRIS for the NRHP listings in the county, but that is different, that would not be a positively presented set). By contrast, the NPS does in fact present this featured listings collection as a set. The Ozaukee County wikipedia list-article, at least, is not supported by documents asserting its importance or existence as an organized set. Would the deletion nominator and voters here want also to delete the Ozaukee County list? If not, what is different. Likewise, what about lists of ships listed on the NRHP, or bridges and tunnels in a given state, or NRHPs at universities, or many other lists. I must say, I am not happy to be engaging in discussion about deleting this list-article, but if you want to delete this you should provide clear arguments about why this one that is associated with me personally, and not others. doncram (talk) 06:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The geographic-based lists are an obvious way of breaking up a full list that would otherwise be way too long. As for the topic-based lists, they are intersections of two important topics - NRHP listings and bridges, tunnels, etc. On the other hand, being featured on the NRHP main page isn't too important. It's a lot like a list of articles featured on Wikipedia's main page. --NE2 07:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regretful delete, since as much as hate that he's the one making it, NE2 has a very good point there. I think it's nice that the NPS has decided to sort of emulate us and feature one new listing every week. However, this is as Orlady says, not something that's been widely picked up on. Yet. We can certainly recreate this if it does become something of note within the historic-preservation community. Daniel Case (talk) 17:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is like our featured articles, and it did occur to me that one resolution would be to mark such articles within the NRHP lists. But that would leave no way to find them all, if one were so inclined. Note that featured articles appear in Wikipedia:Featured articles, which is linked to from the main page. If we were to move this article out of article namespace, it would essentially disappear. -- Mwanner | Talk 19:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral The one problem I have with this list is that it is an ever growing one and one that will require maintenance every week. If the list is primarily for use by the Project to determine high priority articles to write (given the redlinks), then it probably belongs in ProjectSpace. If the intention is to keep a list in Wikipedia that is the same as one on the NPS website, then the list part of the article should be deleted and a link given to the NPS website. If, however, this list is not available anywhere else AND someone from the Project is prepared to commit to maintaining it every week, then I see no problem in it living in ArticleSpace. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As an index to the wikipedia articles on the featured NRHP listings, the list is not available anywhere else. Only this list can be used to navigate to the wikipedia articles, which carry usual wikipedia benefits of wikilinking architectural and historical terms and which are otherwise interlinked with the wikipedia. The wikipedia list and its articles are different and "better" in some ways than anything available at the National Park Service. I am the wp:NRHP project member who has developed this list and I created, i think, 14 of the 15 articles that it indexes. By the way wp:NRHP operates, others usually contribute as well with edits following my listing it in the new articles section of the wikiproject. I expect to continue maintaining and developing this. doncram (talk) 10:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that this is the only index to the Wikipedia articles about the listings that have been featured in the NRHP weekly listings, but (because I have yet to see any evidence that there there is anything notable about the listings that were so featured) I have to ask "so what?". (The Internet also lacks an index to the Wikipedia articles about National Parks that I have visited, but the list of parks I have visited is not notable and does not belong in Wikipedia article space.) The list of featured properties is readily available on the NRHP website at http://www.nps.gov/history/nr/nrlist.htm and there is nothing preventing a user from maintaining a list in user space or project space; I am only saying that I have seen no evidence that this list belongs in article space. --Orlady (talk) 03:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral With a second observation that Wiki itself is ever-growing and its article require upkeep and maintenance on an even more urgent schedule, this AfD in point. If there is a better place for this article, where it will itself receive the upkeep and maintenance it will require, then that option should surely be of highest consideration. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The main aspect of maintaining this list-article is creating at least a stub article for each featured property using the documents made available for these featured listings. Creating articles on NRHP sites is exactly what the NRHP wikiproject does, and it is most of what i do in my wikipedia editing. I would guess that i have created more than 2,000 articles in one year; wp:NRHP has created 15,000 articles in two years. Ensuring that one article in this program is done each week is no problem, well within even my own capacity alone. And, it is more beneficial and interesting to focus article creation on these featured listings because of their news value (as brand new listings), because they are in fact featured by the National Park Service, and because there is extensive documentation made available for these ones, so there is no sacrifice involved in focusing on these ones. Having the article in mainspace keeps a bit of pressure on to maintain it, but that is just a good thing. If this were not in mainspace, that would most likely undermine my personal interest in maintaining it, so here is the best option for its development and maintenance, in my view. doncram (talk) 10:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doncram, I think you are saying that this list article exists solely as a resource for article creators. I believe that is a good and sufficient reason for maintaining a list in Project or User space. Then, however, you say that if it is moved outside of article space, you will stop maintaining this resource (in the playground context, this is called picking up your ball and bat and going home), so we had better keep in article space to keep you happy. You didn't really mean that, did you? --Orlady (talk) 03:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orlady, first, I did not say what you state you are thinking i was saying, probably for good reasons. Second, you make a false statement: "Then, however, you say that if it is moved outside of article space, you will stop maintaining this resource...." That is simply false! I said it "would most likely undermine my personal interest in maintaining it" which is quite different, and which is a true statement of my feeling about this. It doesn't call for the label you wish to attach to it. I have trouble with other labels you are throwing at me, below, too, which i think also are not really relevant. doncram (talk) 19:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The great majority of list articles, from List of A B-sides to List of Zambia-related articles lacks third-party coverage— it's the nature of the beast, they aren't like other articles. This article is exactly like our other NRHP list articles except that it is more useful because the info it captures is fleeting. -- Mwanner | Talk 13:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:WAX. Daniel Case (talk) 13:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, I always knew this as the Pokémon test-- I guess WAX is the new, improved version. Anyway, this is not quite the same issue, since it is not the article's notability that is at issue, rather, it is the matter of references. I am not arguing that the existence of one article justifies the existence of another, I am arguing that the lack of references in a large percentage of a particular class of articles, namely lists, justifies keeping this list article in the main namespace if it's only failing is a lack of references. Besides, doesn't this situation call for the {{unreferenced}} tag, rather than deletion (er, removal from article space)? -- Mwanner | Talk 20:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A very appropriate list, and helpful, which is enough justification for a list. This AfD seems not very useful, since we will certainly be restoring it rather soon after as the3 references come in. DGG (talk) 02:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:USEFUL. Daniel Case (talk) 13:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the actual proposal is not to delete the article but to move it to project space, where it would be available to move to article space later on, if and when these hypothetical references materialize. --Orlady (talk) 03:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the proposal is not to delete the article, then why are we discussing it in an AfD? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Beeswaxcandle, in the nomination I stated "The need to move this from article space to Wikiproject space has been discussed on the article talk page (and I in fact moved the page to Wikiproject space), but the creator of the article is adamant that it belongs in article space and essentially dared me to bring this here." For details, see the earlier discussion on the article's talk page, including the article's creator statement that "If someone wants to raise this in a larger forum, then go ahead. However, this is mainspace material in my view, and can be defended." --Orlady (talk) 12:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orlady, take some personal responsibility here. I interpreted your argumentative style of comments as headed toward an AfD or some other process, but I did not encourage you to open an AfD or other action. I explicitly asked you not to. It is a crazy situation, if you interpret what i say as the opposite of what i am saying. I agree with Beeswaxcandle, it does seem that you raised this in the wrong forum, given your arguments. Perhaps wp:Requested moves would have been more appropriate. But, we are discussing it here, so here it stays, and hopefully ends. doncram (talk) 18:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per DGG. Edward321 (talk) 23:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep useful to both readers and authors. Sourced. presented in an encyclopaedic fashion. Piece of a large notable topic, for which this is the best style of presentation. Function over arbitrariness. Wily D 13:05, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's useful alright. Daniel Case (talk) 13:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing me towards something far more in need of deletion. Wily D 15:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move to within the project space of Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, at least for now. I get the impression that the "Featured Property" heading within the NRHP Weekly List Actions page is meant to draw attention and interest toward the kinds of properties that are newly listed on the National Register. I don't think it's an official program, but just a "teaser" to get people to read the new nominations. As an aside, the nomination forms for the featured properties are all online, so the description at Art Troutner Houses Historic District could have been expanded. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 18:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move to project space. Another option might be to create one of those navigation templates that seem to be quite popular these days. --Polaron | Talk 22:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, again, with new information - The following is the body of an e-mail I received today from the National Register in response to my query about the selection criteria for featured properties.

Thank you for your question. We had two goals in mind when beginning our weekly feature portion on the website: to bring more attention to the National Register program and its properties and to show the diversity of resources listed on the National Register of Historic Places.
The process for selecting our features is simple. The National Register staff chooses an interesting property that is to be listed that week. Our criteria for selection is that from week to week these properties should exhibit different types, styles, periods of history, and from different states. The features are not a subset of the NRHP and are not officially designated in any other way than other listed properties. Properties are not chosen based on the documentation provided, as we require all nominations to have sufficient information to support significance and subsequent listing. The summary paragraph is taken from the nomination and is intended to provide basic information about the property and why it is significant.

In my view, a ~~subset~~ selection of National Register entries designed to illustrate the diversity of type and location of new listings is notable. I have included this information in the introduction to the list. Lvklock (talk) 17:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting that statement from the NRHP and incorporating it into the list-article. I can imagine future coverage of the program explaining how the emerging set of featured listings complies or not with those goals, too. As Mwanner pointed out above, "the great majority of list articles, from List of A B-sides to List of Zambia-related articles lacks third-party coverage— it's the nature of the beast, they aren't like other articles. This article is exactly like our other NRHP list articles except that it is more useful..." And now it is even more useful, and more referenced than many lists. By the way, i think Daniel Case was probably being sarcastic in his overt support for the list-article by mentioning wp:USEFUL, but that wikipedia mini-essay points out that usefulness is a fair argument, sometimes, such as when it provides a service to readers to navigate among a certain set of articles. This list-article is certainly useful in that wikipedia guideline's approved way. doncram (talk) 17:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, we are reading different things into that message. I read the message as saying that the "featured" listings are purely an element of the website, intended (in my words) to spice up the website, bring positive attention to the NRHP, and educate the public. The message explicitly says "The features are not a subset of the NRHP and are not officially designated in any other way than other listed properties," which I read as saying that there is no particular significance to the choice of "featured" properties. I still see this as similar to a magazine's cover story or perhaps the monthly Featured Objects at the Smithsonian's National Museum of American History or the Object of the Month at the Ulster Museum. --Orlady (talk) 21:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so subset was the wrong word. There is no argument that each item is notable. I still believe that a list selected to highlight the wide breadth of "types, styles, periods of history" and location is worthy of inclusion. You say in your initial statement "not even the entity that has "featured" these properties (the National Park Service) has published anything about the reasons why it "features" certain properties or the basis for selecting these properties." This correspondence has explained the reasons. It is certainly not an "indiscriminate collection of information." Lvklock (talk) 23:24, 23 October 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, but especially per this. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 00:58, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Pelkey

Non existant person.

Weak delete unable to verify this [52] but similarly named people are playing hockey (Bobby/Billy Joe Pelkey ) so may be just out of date. JJL (talk) 00:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete That the Aissistant Captain isn't mentioned on the team roster is indeed odd. Article was actually written in April, so the 'second season' is 07-08, not 08-09. Claim to have 43 points (in April) - only 7 players finished the season with 40+ points for the Vancouver Giants, listed on WHL website. Search of NHL.com for "Pelkey" returns nothing, so he didn't move up to the NHL, nor has he been mentioned on an archived article. Strongly suspect no player of the given name exists. (The Bobby Joe Pelkey noted above plays for Knoxville (and last season also), and for Odessa of the CHL prior to that, so its not just a forename/middle name issue - it's a different person who has nothing to do with the article) [[53]] article on Central Scouting ranks in the WHL makes no mantion of a Joe Pelkey.MadScot (talk) 01:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There's no one by that name either on the Giants roster or indeed in the whole Western Hockey League. Nor is there anyone by that name in the Central Scouting Service OR the International Scouting Service lists, as the article asserts. Hoax article. RGTraynor 04:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. If any evidence can be provided to verify info, then it needs added; until then, it should be deleted. Black ngold29 04:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletion discussions. RGTraynor 04:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC) [reply]
Delete Not only is it a hoax, but the hoaxter didn't even make his fictional player notable. Reso lute 04:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't look like a real person. Interesting way of creating a false article though, what with the non-notability of it all. Kaiser matias (talk) 07:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per hoax and non-notability. -Djsasso (talk) 13:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could not find any sources --Banime (talk) 15:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoax, and not even a funny or interesting one. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Fails notability and verifiability. —C.Fred (talk) 16:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (invoke WP:SNOW) probably hoax and either way the sources clearly don't exist to support such an article. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 21:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Hoax article, non-notable...sigh... – Nurmsook! ^talk... 21:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Edward321 (talk) 23:23, 21 October 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 01:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tha' Realist

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Tha' Realist

Fails WP:NM, lacks substantial notability for reliable third-party sources. DiverseMentality^(Boo!) 00:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating: Da Realist (Plies album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Keep. Notable album by notable artist. Coverage found ([54],[55],[56]). ~~I see no benefit from deleting this.~~--Michig (talk) 11:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC) Apologies - I obviously didn't read the sources well enough - album not out yet, so should probably not have an article yet.--Michig (talk) 17:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC#Albums & crystal ball. While the ref's prove the album will exist, they don't prove why it is notable. Even if it has been released it still wouldn't pass the album notability guidelines. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 12:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:MUSIC#ALBUMS. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 13:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 19:30, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC#ALBUMS and WP:CRYSTALBALL Ijanderson (talk) 11:50, 23 October 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 The Lost Room. MBisanz ^talk 01:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Key and the Clock

An episode of a three-part miniseries. Article consists entirely of plot summary (WP:NOT#PLOT) and a list of episode-specific plot device items. however the plot is already covered in The Lost Room (for comparison, I was perfectly able to cover all six episodes of an immensly popular and influential miniseries in one FA article), and the objects are covered in Objects from The Lost Room. I recently redirected the article because there was nothing worth merging, but since the redirect was reverted (reasoning: "this was a valid article", with which I strongly disagree), I am taking this here for more input. – sgeureka ^t•c 00:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also nominate for the same reason

and preemptively nominate

– sgeureka ^t•c 03:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all three. Having looked at them and the main article (and your admirable P&P article!) I couldn't agree more. The three are nothing but plot, at a microscopic level--one can't see the forest for the trees. Drmies (talk) 04:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: to The Lost Room. Schuym1 (talk) 13:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 19:29, 21 October 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 Saw (film series). While the consensus is clearly for merge, there is some disagreement on the target. However, that becomes an editing issue, not an AfD issue. Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:41, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pig mask

AfDs for this article:

Fascinating stuff, and very well-written and comprehensive; however, this is all just plot summary. I see no evidence that this is more notable than any other plot device in any other movie. The only thing this has going for it is that it was made into 3 toys, but I can't find evidence that those themselves are notable, and they don't meet either of the WP:TOY criteria.

Also nominating these:

Saw (2003 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - This isn't necessarily a delete - I think this could be included in the Saw (film) article, as all it is now is a large chunk of plot summary. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 00:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I would have originally said Keep, but chances are that wouldn't get me anywhere. And even if this was kept, the odds are that it will be renominated at some point in the future. So...Pig Mask should be merged to Jigsaw Killer, Hello Zepp to Saw (film series) and Saw (2003 film) to Saw (film).--CyberGhostface (talk) 02:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just out of curiosity; how would you merge Hello Zepp into anything? The article is one massive chunk of OR/plot summary. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 17:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if merged, there should be no redirect because "pig mask" is a generic term. The history should be moved to a subpage, and pig mask should be a redlink. If kept, the article should be renamed for the same reason. (say Pig mask in Saw or something) 70.55.200.131 (talk) 04:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per CyberGhostface. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't like the way these three articles are bundled together into one AFD. The issues for each article are different so really there are three seperate conversations happening in the same place. I really think the nom should withdraw their nomination and renom each article seperately.Nrswanson (talk) 10:51, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- They're not that different at all, though. Each one is a huge chunk of unnecessary plot summary that shouldn't have an article; whether or not people think that they should be merged is their choice, but I only see one as having a slight possibility of being merged. Oh, and you guys know that you can cast a different vote for each one, right? You don't have to apply a blanket vote. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 17:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per CGF, if the three articles are to be considered as a single entry. However, Nrswanson is correct -- bundling these three very different articles into a single AfD makes little sense, and even the nominator acknowledges one of them doesn't really deserve to be considered for deletion. Ecoleetage (talk) 17:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - But I disagree with CyberGhostface about the pig mask being merged into Jigsaw's character article. Only because the mask has been worn by more characters. I think the pig mask should be merged with the Billy puppet article - as they are both the iconic inanimate objects of the franchise. Noting that the person who nominated this for deletion acknowledged that there is some degree of significance of their being products released based on the pig mask. Pig mask and Billy the puppet should be merged based on them both being the inanimate icons of the franchise. Yeldarb68 (talk) 04:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Per CyberGhostFace. — neuro^(talk) 13:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Per above. Great article, but should be part of the Saw article. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 13:34, 26 October 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wurzelpeter

Description is ambiguous but I deduce that they mean a bitters. Assertively, not to say aggressively described. But is it notable in the English speaking world? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 23:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 00:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. -- TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 00:40, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the product is not even notable in the German speaking world. --Amalthea^Talk 01:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to an article on German Bitters, else delete. This is a nice article, but ultimately not that notable. Writer did a decent job, but it's trivial, all in all. ThuranX (talk) 14:04, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; Germany on the same planet where they speak English. Language does not affect notability.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:45, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete found some mentions in passing, but I can't find anything even reviewing this Brand. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 01:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gnome - The sources provided aren't independent of the subject, and I can't find very much on Google. I think the actual gnome has more of a claim to notability. Reyk _YO! 01:49, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, weakly. The article contains all too much crowing and unverifiable statements, suggesting conflict of interest or simple fannishness, but this is a consumer product that ought to produce at least some reviews and other notice in disinterested reliable sources. It's apparently made by Langguth, the people who own the Blue Nun wine brand.[57] - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Neutral This seems to be one of the many East German products that enjoy widespread Ostalgie popularity. There are a lot of German Google hits for Wurzelpeter (including nicknames and gnome information) [58][59][60], but I am uncertain about this brand's significance. The name of this brand didn't ring a bell with my parents (they aren't into alcohol though), and de.wikipedia doesn't even mention this word/brand (which may stem from a possible West German and young people bias against East German grandpa products from over 20 years ago). – sgeureka ^t•c 15:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - not very well written, but that isn't a cause for deletion. "English-speaking world" is a total red herring - notable is notable, we're trying to write an encyclopaedia here, and things which're less well known in English sources than other language sources are more valuable and useful, not less. Wily D 12:27, 22 October 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 01:15, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Republic pro wrestling

I've declined an A7 speedy on this, as 1) there are satelite pages that do not qualify for A7, and 2) There's an outside chance this is actually notable. But for now, there is no indication that this thing is actually notable in the slightest. TexasAndroid (talk) 19:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know if this is how I go about talking about the "speedy deletion" note, But I was wondering the problem with the page and why it is up for deletion? What is it meant by "Actually Notable"? This is a real company, trying to continue to get its name out there. The RPW website is currently down if that is the problem? And Im new to adding Wikipedia entries so I am unfamiliar with a "Satellite" Page and "A7".

--LocoNL (talk) 22:11, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:CORP for details of what notability means for companies on Wikipedia. - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. -- TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 02:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability is not asserted. The first site in a google search comes with the google warning "This site may harm your computer." which is not a good sign. I found a third related article and added that. The sole contributor seems to be treating Wikipedia like his own webspace. @LocoNL, your company may exist but that alone is not a reason to have an article on Wikipedia. I suggest you read the guidelines for notability. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm sorry LocoNL! I do not believe the organization qualifies as notable, per the guidelines. Very bluntly, the WP:NOTADVOCATE policy states Those promoting causes or events, or issuing public service announcements, even if noncommercial, should use a forum other than Wikipedia to do so. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, all four. Notability is not established, and previous editors have said plenty about WP policy on such use of WP. Drmies (talk) 04:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is not established, as per the earlier comments. Ecoleetage (talk) 17:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:N. Nikki311 01:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:COMPANY and WP:N.--S _R X 22:40, 22 October 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 Characters_in_the_Axis_of_Time_Trilogy. MBisanz ^talk 01:15, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Admiral Kolhammer

This character does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 18:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I think all characters from Axis of Time. No notability outside its fictional world. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: to Axis of Time. The character is not independently notable. Schuym1 (talk) 13:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect is fine, no notability evident. HiDrNick! 18:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Characters_in_the_Axis_of_Time_Trilogy, where it's already covered. VG ☎ 07:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 19:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 19:26, 21 October 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. X clamation point 16:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Polish National Top 50 number-one hits of 2006

AfDs for this article:

List of Number One hits on a red link chart. No idea why these were kept if the chart is a long ways from notable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 20:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the chart was notable just badly written and without sources, thats why it was deleted, the chart is notable. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 15:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Polish National Top 50 and Polish Singles Chart are not the same. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:23, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. -- TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 00:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as well as other poorly sourced (homepage OR / hoax) stuff from the creator (lists for 2007 and 2008). Wikipedia is not an outlet for somebody's OR lists.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:27, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the same list (Polish hits of the 2000's?). This material seems to be notable, and list the is not entirely "indiscriminate" (per the policy); however, each one does not needs its own article. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If the main chart page is not verifiable/legitimate, how can lists that are derived from that main chart be verifiable/legitimate? SKS2K6 (talk) 03:36, 20 October 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. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sidney Campodonico Filho

Non-notable autobiography. Was speedied twice; once today, and the subject put it back up minutes later. CyberGhostface (talk) 00:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete criteria, probably. Obvious conflict of interests, extremely little notability, fails WP:BIO, etc. Bsimmons666 (talk) 00:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Note: Can a Portugese reading editor look at some of THESE? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — John Z (talk) 02:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article proves no notability, and I can't see any that I can read. Then, there's the COI, the POV, the putting it back up... Drmies (talk) 04:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Who is this guy and why does he think WP is a free resume-hosting service? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete MQS: I am Portuguese and I reviewed those links, plus the Portuguese Wikipedia article. It doesn't add up, as per WP:BIO and WP:RS. Sorry, Doc. Ecoleetage (talk) 17:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 21 October 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 02:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Paisley Party Tour

I'm not sure if this is a notable tour or not. The GAC source, while certainly reliable, only lists tour dates and artists, as do all other sources that I've found (for example, this). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 14:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This tour might be notable as it was Jewel's first real tour as a Country music artist. Currently the Jewel (singer) article only has a passing mention of this tour: She will tour with Brad Paisley, Chuck Wicks and Julianne Hough on Paisley's 2008 tour and another mention under the "Major tours" header. While I say "delete" it might, in the long run, be better to merge relevant information into the Jewel (singer) article. Soundvisions1 (talk) 14:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep national tour with several major artists. There isn't quite as much on Google News about this as I expected, but thee's enough to reliably source the basics and flesh out the article a bit (apparently ex-Hootie Darius Rucker joined for some dates). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:03, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 19:24, 21 October 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 01:15, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails to establish notability per WP:GNG. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 09:12, 24 October 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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cedric hanriot

Fails WP:N and WP:BIO. Article about a musician who hasn't graduated from music school yet. Jazz Revelation Records, which published his last two recordings, is the student-run studio at Berklee. None of his other recordings appear notable. The claims of appearances at "prestigious performance venues" and "major composition and solo prizes" seem dubious at best, and performing besides somebody notable does not spread notability.

No reliable third party sources found from a Google search and nothing found on google news. Themfromspace (talk) 07:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:59, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per everything in nomination plus both labels don't have articles. Bsimmons666 (talk) 00:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails every criterion of WP:MUSIC that I can see. Nothing to suggest the awards he's won are notable, his label is clearly a very minor one, and no coverage in reliable sources to comply with WP:V. ~ mazca ^t|c 08:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.Nrswanson (talk) 10:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: He fails WP:MUSIC. Schuym1 (talk) 12:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC. Looks okay at first glance but under scrutiny just doesn't measure up. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:25, 20 October 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. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 01:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SSTF

Original research. The references given don't mention it at all. Wafulz (talk) 00:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Could be a hoax - I've never heard of it. Not here or on urban dictionary. Bsimmons666 (talk) 00:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No ghits of consequence. Author seems very keen on the concept, though - has also inserted references to this in other BDSM articles, which will need to be cleaned up. (Editorially with respect to the links, that is) MadScot (talk) 01:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. OR, perhaps, and I don't see any reality to it. BTW, I was somewhat tickled by the phrase "eroticly arouseling"--has an erotic ring to it. Oh, that's arouseling! Drmies (talk) 04:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.Nrswanson (talk) 10:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I guess pretty much anything imaginable is somebody's sex fantasy. An encyclopedia can't be expected to cover everything in the universe that makes somebody, somewhere shoot their load. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would know if this acronym was commonly used by people in the scene. It isn't. JuJube (talk) 18:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 07:29, 21 October 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 11: / Line 11: @@
 __TOC__
 <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Underfist: Halloween Bash}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Augmented reality links}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rakasiya}}