Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 December 24: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 08:15, 24 December 2008

< December 23	December 25 >

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 delete. Closing per obvious consensus. — Aitias // discussion 04:34, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Molecular Gravity

Incoherent, unscientific. Strong delete. StonerDude420 (talk) 08:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Original research/hoax/pseudoscience/neutrality issues/not notable/written in first person/etc. Someone's definitely bored at work. Graymornings_(talk) 08:20, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect- That guy's work is 100% original research but the page might serve as a redirect to Molecular attraction. --Unpopular Opinion (talk) 08:26, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unless a better target for redirect is found. Molecular attraction might be something completely different. --Unpopular Opinion (talk) 08:57, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - pure OR with no other value as I mentioned in the prod. I'm not really all that sure if the redirect is really appropriate. I am trying to figure out the specific meaning that this phrase has in RS's, but so far, I am not entirely able to ascertain if it is germane to Molecular attraction. -Seidenstud (talk) 08:34, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no redirect. Creating a redirect to intermolecular forces would suggest a link between IMFs and gravity, which simply doesn't exist. A few sources seem to refer to "molecular gravity" as a (completely unrelated) physical property of substances akin to specific gravity, but I can't find any clear definition to work from. Zetawoof_(ζ) 09:01, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Consists completely of OR, as the page itself says that it is the writer's own theory. No reason whatsoever to keep this misleading page, delete ASAP. Chamal ^talk 12:58, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this essay. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 15:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - original research, unredeemable. Wily D 17:16, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Blog/original research/essay, even if this was the place to publish theories there is nothing of scientific merit in this theory. --Wadeperson (talk) 18:22, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete - original research as edit history clearly proves. Jason Quinn (talk) 21:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's gonna be a whiiiiiiite Christmas... Graymornings_(talk) 00:06, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Non-scientific, No accurate information, This guy was definitely bored while editing this.--Pookeo9 (talk) 17:13, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:19, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Refused discography

Delete unecessary fork from main article on band Mayalld (talk) 07:48, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:20, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:20, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It is standard practice to split off long discographys from the main article. There are plenty of FL-Class Discography articles that are shorter. It needs tidying not deleting. --JD554 (talk) 10:21, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge. Creating an article to spin off material that would take up too much space in another article is perfectly acceptable. Whether that is required or whether the material should be put back where it came from is up for discussion, but deletion would result in the removal of valid material. _ Mgm|^(talk) 13:34, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Refused's notability is established in the main article. They've released enough material to justify a new article for the discography. Teemu08 (talk) 17:04, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 00:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moves Me E.P

Delete non notable musical composition that has had no physical release. Mayalld (talk) 07:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:19, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Demi Lovato. Nothing notable about this release, fails WP:NALBUMS. --JD554 (talk) 10:19, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:25, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: notability of release not established WP:NALBUMS. JamesBurns (talk) 02:42, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 00:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Nina Concerts and Gigs

Listcruft and fancruft. What is "notable"? Very vague and pointless list. User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 06:44, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agreed, needs to go. StonerDude420 (talk) 07:00, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because Wikipedia isn't a directory ~~and because it's out of date anyway~~. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:16, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Nina Girado. Just because it becomes outdated doesn't mean an event loses notability. Since there's enough information in there (venues and dates) it's possible part of this entry could be helpful in the main article. Also, a merge discussion was started today and it would be a good idea to have it run its course before considering outright deletion. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: listcruft, WP:DIRECTORY. JamesBurns (talk) 04:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tim DeChristopher

Person notable only because of one event; this would seem to fall under WP:ONEEVENT. Recommend delete. Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:21, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I suppose it is true DeChristopher "has been in the news" only because of a single event, but I also find the event fairly substantial. Furhtermore, not only do "reliable sources" "cover the person in the context of a particular event" (the sale of public land in Utah), but they dedicate entire articles specifically to his act of civil disobedience and environmental activism. Vasilken 06:41, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I realize you created the article and thus believe it should be here. However, as you mention, all the coverage is in the context of this news event. Had this event not happened, there wouldn't be (any?) secondary sources on the subject, because he wouldn't be newsworthy. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 07:48, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There will be further coverage of him as federal prosecutors prepare to file charges against him while activist organizations consider ways to help him. In any case, what is the "passability" test for this? If the case were to drag on for months, with continuous news coverage, would the article still be subject to deletion since everything was centered around the original event? Alternatively, if he were acquitted this time but was later arrested for, say, armed bank robbery, would the entry be allowed to stay because he would have been newsworthy in the context of two events? Finally, should we also delete the entry for Gavrilo Princip? He was only known in the context of a single event, too! Vasilken 11:46, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "There will be further coverage..." "If the case were to drag on for months..." "If he were acquitted but later arrested for, say, armed bank robbery..." WP:FUTURE. None of this has happened yet. As of now, he has been in the news for one and only one event, and you should know better than to compare an entry on him to one on the chap who set off the spark that resulted in World War I. If he becomes that famous, if there are books written about him, then we can recreate the article. Remember WP:SCRABBLE. If this event is that noteworthy, create an article on the event, not the person, as per WP:ONEEVENT. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 02:05, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ONEEVENT. Delete. StonerDude420 (talk) 07:02, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not a biography, a one-off news event. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 09:09, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:17, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:17, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unclear where to merge the information. Until we know what to do with it, it doesn't make sense to delete it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:35, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Two good independent RSs. Probable public effect, possibly even of national significance. If the story never develops dfurther, no prejudice against reconsidering. DGG (talk) 22:55, 24 December 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 02:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article isn't about him, it's about his action. It was a very minor, not-notable event. TJ Spyke 02:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I looked at lots of articles trying to read about his action and trial. It would be nice to have it on Wikipedia. Jeshii (talk) 20:48, 4 March 2011 (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.

Keep Tim DeChristopher's environmental activism and emergence as a public figure that sparked protests throughout the United States and garnered international media coverage warrants a Wikipedia page about him, his actions, and his experience in the American judicial system. This is not a one-off media event. DeChristopher's initial act of defiance has lead to a two-year debate about civil disobedience as means to promote environmental awareness and protection. It has also become a lense through which Americans have gained sobering insight into their justice system. The fact that DeChristopher's Wikipedia page is garnering such heated debate (while countless personal pages exhibiting far less deserving individuals)underscores the level of public interest and events surrounding this person. If this was truly a "one-off" media event, or if people were only interested in a single event rather than the man behind the movement, the existence/deletion of a Tim DeChristopher Wikipedia page would go unnoticed.

(talk) 28 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.243.252 (talk)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Magic item (Dungeons & Dragons)

Crufty, should be merged to Dungeons & Dragons or deleted outright. Wikipedia is not a game guide. Prodego ^talk 06:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. —Gavin Collins (talk) 09:35, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Clearly this is an unimportant fictional artifact as it could be interechanged with just about any prop. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:35, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This isn't about an artifact; it is about an entire category of items in the game. -Drilnoth (talk) 13:35, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Indeed, this is more of a concept that goes back to the very roots of the game. I've seen Gary Gygax mentioning in interviews of how in the days before the game even saw print, players were looking to recover magical treasure from fallen enemies. This concept is neither a singular artifact nor a prop: "Magic item" is to Excalibur as "Basketball player" is to Michael Jordan. BOZ (talk) 15:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment This article is not about a prop, under any definition of that term. To assert such, let alone to think it refers to a single object, shows a profound failure to understand the subject of the article. Edward321 (talk) 23:04, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment If it is not a prop per se, then are you saying that is not used in the game? Are you saying it is a category applicable to only the Dungeons and Dragons game, a type of fictional category that is not actually used by a player of Dungeons and Dragons, but used to describe the fictional artifacts that are? What chances are there of ever establishing notability for fictional category that has no real-world application? --Gavin Collins (talk) 20:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there's a real lack of reliable secondary sources in order to demonstrate how much of the content is notable. I first considered a redirect, but haven't found a suitable redirect target myself. Ideally, I'd suggest a redirect to something like a Gameplay/Mechanics D&D article, or a wider Items RPG/gaming article. Gazi moff 09:51, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is the result of a many-article merge of less-notable articles. The article certainly needs work, although it will never be improved if it is deleted. Were sources searched for before the nomination? WP:N states that "If appropriate sources cannot be found..." before explaining merging/deletion. Also, my interpretation of WP:GAMEGUIDE is that things such as attack bonuses and hit points should not be included, and righftully so. Now, some of the content in the article is gameguidy. However, enough of it isn't that we'd still have a decent article even if it was removed. -Drilnoth (talk) 13:34, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As per Drilnoth. The article needs improvement, but deletion doesn't seem to be an appropriate step at this point at all.Shemeska (talk) 13:54, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I created this article in part, as a place to merge less notable articles into as Drilnoth states, but primarily to increase coverage on this important aspect of the D&D game. One of the main goals for players of the game is to have their characters accumulate treasure by defeating their enemies, and magical treasure is often paramount. Undoubtedly, this concept is likely to be featured in any secondary sources which discuss the game in depth. The D&D project has been a mess for a long time regarding sourcing, but I think we are finally coming around, and have just started to gather up information on reliable secondary sources that we may all make use of. I am confident that a search through those sources, or other ones not yet listed, will yield positive results for the concept of magic items in the Dungeons & Dragons game. If merge winds up being the preferred result, much of this content was moved from Magic of Dungeons & Dragons (which now focuses largely on magic spells rather than items) in the first place, so we could always move it back there. BOZ (talk) 15:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Also, "crufty" is not a reason to delete, it is a reason for cleanup. And I would like to mention that the nominator did not alert me to this deletion discussion on my talk page. BOZ (talk) 15:36, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article needs to be cleaned up, but there is nothing here that can't be saved with some edits. There are refs and I can find more. "Crufty" is not a reason to delete. This is not a game guide either. So with both reasons failing there is no reason to delete this article. Web Warlock (talk) 16:00, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Dungeons & Dragons game mechanics — I disagree with the above. Nearly the entire article is game guide material; however, it is still salvageable, so outright deletion may not be the best route here. Trim all that down and merge it into the game mechanics article. IMO it complements well with the material there. MuZemike (talk) 18:26, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I think that if the article was merged, Game Mechanics wouldn't be the right place. Additionally, WP:GAMEGUIDE says that "a Wikipedia article should not read like a how-to style manual of instructions, advice (legal, medical or otherwise) or suggestions, or contain how-tos." Although the article does contain some things which should probably be removed because they fail this, I think that the vast majority of the article just needs a bit of a rewrite. -Drilnoth (talk) 19:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - Magic items in D&D are both a setting element and a game mechanics element. I feel that it would be unprofessional to neglect the game mechanics aspects, and both unprofessional and silly to actively avoid using examples in the coverage of the game mechanics aspects when using examples would be clearer and more concise than the alternatives. If it does get merged, I feel that it would be more appropriate to divide the content between Magic of Dungeons & Dragons and Dungeons & Dragons game mechanics rather than merging everything into one of the two articles. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 19:34, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or light merge per above. Hooper (talk) 19:09, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - For the reasons outlined above by myself and others. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 19:34, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge The topic seems fairly generic and could be expanded to included RPGs in general or magic items of all sorts. Deletion is not appropriate as the article is already in better shape than the main article on Magic items. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:51, 24 December 2008
Keep and expand. This article suffers from a bad case of recentism--You'd think, from reading it, that 3, 3.5, and 4 were the influential editions of D&D. Jclemens (talk) 06:51, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no sources independent of the subject (only sources are published by the game's current/former publishers), so no evidence of notability. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:28, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Although the article does not currently have independent sources, I don't think that that means the topic is not notable... a topic is not notable once people have tried and failed to find independent sources. I think that the use of primary sources or unreliable sources is separate from notability, but correct me if I'm wrong. -Drilnoth (talk) 14:52, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other than evidence of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", and similar objective criteria (which can only rely on coverage to hand, not speculation of what coverage might be out there), there's little but personal opinions (excluded as WP:ATA#Personal point of view) & subjective views (WP:LOCALFAME) -- neither of which is a good basis for collective decision making. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:12, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N states that quote "If appropriate sources cannot be found, consider merging the article's content into a broader article providing context. Otherwise, if deleting:..." My take on that is that an article's current sources should not be used on their own in discussions about notability, but other sources not yet added to the article should be considered before deleting/merging. I agree completely that the article needs better sources, but I believe that that is a question of WP:V and WP:RS, not WP:N.
Additionally, Wikipedia's deletion policy says that reasons for deletion include: "Articles which cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources," "Articles for which all attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed" and "Articles whose subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth)" At this point, I do not believe that all attempts have been made to find reliable sources or that sources cannot possibly be found, nor do I believe that the subject is not notable... a subject fails to meet a notability guideline if sources to meet the guidelines have not been found after they are searched for, regardless of what is actually in the article at the time. -Drilnoth (talk) 19:04, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Airy assertions that 'there are sources out there somewhere ' are easy to make and impossible to disprove -- so are simply so much hot air. WP:NOTE requires that sources are reliable, independent and provide significant coverage -- issues that can only be evaluated for specific sources. Therefore specific sources are needed -- not airy assertions and WP:GOOGLEHITS. "To hand" does not necessarily mean 'already in the article', but it does mean that it can be specifically identified, so that it can be evaluated (and put into the article if it merits it). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:39, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I completely agree with Colonel Warden -- the literary concept of a magic item is certainly notable, and it's a huge part of not only fantasy gaming, but the entire fantasy genre. However, I don't think an in-depth explanation of the categories of 4th edition magic item equipment slots is necessary to explain that concept. I appreciate that this is a consolidation, but it should be trimmed further, keeping the notable concepts and items, then merged to magic item. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 20:23, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep References #1, #2, #5, and #6 are all reliable verifiable sources. I still say it needs a healthy trimming, but it does seem to meet the notability requirements in its current state. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 21:48, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article clearly needs improving, but it's a legitmate spinout article to keep the main D&D article from growing too big. Edward321 (talk) 23:04, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Col Warden.--Robbstrd (talk) 00:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. I added two secondary refs. to demonstrate notability.—RJH (talk) 19:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hjalmar Peterson

Notability, I can't find anything on this guy (and the page title doesn't match the subject), but I am not sure, particularly due to the interwiki. More of a inquisitive AfD then anything else, wasn't sure enough to speedy. Prodego ^talk 05:51, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article seems acceptably referenced, largely to books easily verifiable at gbooks, and searches e.g. [1] shows clear notability. See e.g. [2] about a play about him, "the king of Swedish-American vaudeville during the '20s and '30s", better known under the stage name Olle i Skratthult.John Z (talk) 07:22, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well-referenced and suitably notable. AfD isn't really a place to inquire after notability; do your research and then nom for deletion. There is no "inquisitive AfD." Graymornings_(talk) 10:21, 24 December 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 Helpful One 12:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Asia Paranormal Investigators

Notability not established regarding the organization; the article also contains unreferenced materials; advertising or unnecessary promotion of a group; many of the "sources" are broken links. There are far too many fringe and non-notable paranormal investigation "organizations" or groups that contain not even a trace amount of notability or claim to fame -- and having a mention in a news article or magazine does not make one notable. seicer | talk | contribs 05:27, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not notable. Delete. StonerDude420 (talk) 07:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do not see any notability. Delete. --DanteAgusta (talk) 07:38, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability established by references to a large number of articles covering the group. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:44, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the group--many of the references refer only to Goh, not the group; some of them appear to be so closely worded as to be either copies or PR placements. As for the man, I'm not sure, and would prefer him to be renominated separately after this closes. DGG (talk) 23:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete many of the "cites" on that page (for instance one that claims to cite the Straits Times, the biggest paper in singapore) are dead, don't work, mendacious, unclear. This looks like a trivial student prank, at best, or at worst a local group of kooks who've made it into the "on a lighter side" sections of the media in a small and rather dull country of 3 million people. Not notable, not verifiable, etc...Bali ultimate (talk) 05:21, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't this be speedy? It was a strait delete last time... looking into it.Bali ultimate (talk) 05:22, 25 December 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) 00:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and the photo should be eight-sixed too. -Yupik (talk) 00:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a notable organization (clearly). ScienceApologist (talk) 08:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - enough media references for the group itself to prove notability. --Blowdart | ^talk 08:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep neutral article, enough third-party sources to establish notability. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: Minor fame or infamy is not notability, something which often gets forgotten in these discussions. There seems to be a common trends in these votes that if someone has had something printed about them by a few sources, they should have an encyclopedia entry. This is simply wrong, and against the guidelines laid out on the notability pages. And no offense to anyone, and I mean this with the best faith possible, but the combination of the title and the picture in an encyclopedic article just serves to make Wikipedia a laughing stock. Phil153 (talk) 09:46, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article rewritten to fix broken links and more references added so sources are verifiable. Singapore Tourism Board currently recommend joining their spooky tour as one of the 20 unique things to do in Singapore. Please see references in article for this and related TV shows, programmes, newspapers reports for evidence of notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Firet (talk • contribs) 08:00, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*cmt A singapore tourism board boost SPA? That's advertising, not evidence of notability.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:30, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bahro Suryoyo

Notability concerns by editor : 69.226.97.157 (talk) who was unable to properly list article. OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 05:48, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I do not speak the language, but it appears notable. My Swedish is way less than my little Norwegian, but this seems to talk about it [3], as a media association known in Sweden as part of their Aramean-Syriac people. Furthermore, I am weary of anon nominations with no previous discussion in the talk page of the article and by a SPA. I know the nom is acting in good faith, but to ask us to delete a page that has been around for months, created and updated by active editors and with no specifics as to why this is not notable, well, I dunno. If stronger notability concerns are raised by active editors (be them anon or registered) I might change to delete. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 14:41, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Established news organizations should be included. If it doesn't deserve a stand-alone article then let's figure out where to merge it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:38, 24 December 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) 00:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Needs to be filled out with more info, but so do the gazillions of other stubs hanging around. -Yupik (talk) 00:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although an avowed deletionist, this magazine does seems noteworthy. The article needs a major overhaul but that doesn't affect my decision. --RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 00:29, 29 December 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.

Bahro Suryoyo

This page lacks any notability whatsoever. It has remained a stub for 8 months with no significant changes. It has no google hits, it seems to me someone is trying to advertise an unknown magazine website. Non-notable website.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. StarM 01:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Morgan

Goes against WP:1E in that the article subject is only associated with an alleged haunting and not notable for anything else under notability guidelines. KuyaBriBri^Talk 05:19, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:27, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:27, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:27, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:1E is a section of the Biographies of Living Persons policy. I'm not sure if being a ghost really qualifies... :) Totnesmartin (talk) 09:52, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete despite the above, there's not really enough to support an article here. Kate Morgan's suicide is no more notable than anyone else's, and she achieved nothing noteworthy in life. For the haunting, the only source given is a book commissioned and only sold by the relevant hotel - a clear conflict of interest (ghost stories are always good for business). Until a noted paranormal author/investigator writes a book or chapter on this, there's nothing to go on. Totnesmartin (talk) 09:58, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't have anything to say about this nomination, but if deleted, it could be a redirect to Katie Morgan.SPNic (talk) 15:16, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Hotel del Coronado. The life isn't notable, but a few lines of her haunting of the hotel is. Reywas92 ^Talk 15:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article once contained a lot more information that sourced another book but that information was added by the author of the book, going against WP:OR. The talk page contains a lot of extraneous information about Kate Morgan but that info deals a lot with her spouse, straying from the topic of the article. Another contributor has offered to include additional factual information about Morgan, but it is also a WP:OR issue that I'm not sure can be readily cited. KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:04, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable ghost story. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Is the subject of at least three books. A news search indicates multiple mentions of the said myth, with some sources also mentioning the books. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 14:23, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per A3 by It Is Me Here. (non-admin closure) MrKIA11 (talk) 15:40, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Moon Can Blow Me

Potential hoax. I'm no expert on show tunes, but I'm highly skeptical. Also, no luck on initial 8 pages of g-hits on The Moon Can Blow Me by Astaire or Shatner. No hits at all on That Was No Lady, by either Gershwin. OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 05:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As possible hoax, and definetely as non-notable (hell, the text disclaims notability!). Please see here for possible origin. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 05:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I doubt the term blow me existed in the 1920's. Nate • (chatter) 07:51, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

not to mention the shudder factor of William Shatner singing those lyrics... --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 08:00, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hoax. "Lost forever" kinda tipped me off. Well, at least it sounds plausible that Shatner would sing (talk?) a song like this... Graymornings_(talk) 08:24, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, as originally proposed, after the originator described it as a test page and disclaimed notability. Subsequent addition of nonsense did not alter its status. JNW (talk) 21:21, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete - seems made-up because even the phrase "blow me" I think it fairly modern and was not used in the 1920s. Also the text itself proves it is non-notable if it is genuine. Jason Quinn (talk) 21:35, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G3 as blatant misinformation. So tagged. In the alternative, delete as nonnotable. HeureusementIci (talk) 05:18, 25 December 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. — Aitias // discussion 17:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mythkiwi

unsourced, non-notable website. dramatic (talk) 05:10, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 05:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a really useful site, and it should be listed on all appropriate web directories. Wikipedia is not a web directory, so delete.-gadfium 08:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - SimonLyall (talk) 18:47, 26 December 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. Notable or not, WP:NOR (including WP:SYNTH) is core policy, and the promised stubbifying or improvement has not taken place, so it's deletion for now. This does not prohibit the creation of a non-OR stub. Sandstein 22:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Underground culture

This is a very short article which, in a hamfisted attempt to cover a wide variety of only vaguely-related concepts, ends up saying a whole lot of nothing. In the lede, we are led from the Underground Railroad to Vietnam-era draft dodgers to the American Indian Movement at Wounded Knee. But, very little is said about any of them. The article is unclear as to whether it is about political movements that stayed "underground" because of repression (like the French Resistance) or subcultures and music "scenes," such as mod and punk. It is this vagueness which, in the end, makes the article of little value. Furthermore, considering that all of these topics are already discussed elsewhere (for example History of Western subcultures in the 20th Century), this article should be deleted as needlessly repetitive.-RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 05:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

REDIRECT Obvious original research, unsourced, and unverified as an article, but the title Underground culture should be redirected to Subculture, as the term is indeed notable in this use. I do not propose merge as the contents are OR. Thanks! --Cerejota (talk) 05:38, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge The topic is very notable but overlaps with the similar topics of Alternative culture, Counterculture and whatever else. Deletion is not appropriate since the term is obviously a good search term. AFD is not cleanup. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:01, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete far far far far far farrrrrrrrrr too vague of a topic. JBsupreme (talk) 01:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean-up. Maybe what we're ultimately looking for is a short article, differentiating between clandestine political organizations, grassroots subcultures, & like Edgy commercialized subcultures (or some other division) & directing peops as appt.? Franciscrot (talk) 02:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Poorly written, vague, a whole lot of air. The article is unclear about anything at all. Proxy User (talk) 06:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--"If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." --Jmundo (talk) 17:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as pure OR. Trusilver 01:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain your argument?--Jmundo (talk) 07:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll play ball. The article is a very poorly executed attempt by the original author to convey a subject that I'm not entirely sure that he himself really was all that clueful about. The end result is an article that says basically nothing, is more than half OR and the rest is complete synthesis. The references that do exist are tangential at best. The article exists within a scope that makes it irrelevant and useless. Were it to be merged into a larger article, I would see no problem with it. Trusilver 08:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Though less than coherent at this point, it just takes soem editing to make an adequate stub. The general concept is notable and sourced. DGG (talk) 08:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - dosen't quite go into any of the sugested merges. Stubbifying it per DGG may not be a bad idea. Artw (talk) 03:29, 31 December 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 Transwiki to Wikiquote. MBisanz ^talk 03:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Witness accounts of the Roswell UFO incident

Primary source accounts and quotations of witnesses. Essentially, UFO-cruft. Certainly not encyclopedic. Consider trans-wiki to wikiquotes or wikisource but it certainly doesn't belong as an encyclopedia article. I mean, really. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:54, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wikisource, if possible. Seems like too much detail to belong here. Ben Standeven (talk) 05:26, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-- The witness accounts of the Roswell incident are an intricate part of the whole UFO phenomenon. A search in Google Scholar and Google Books verifies the notability of the witness accounts. Maybe "UFO-cruft" ~~but part of the American culture.~~ Change to delete. --Jmundo (talk) 20:59, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No justification for the deletion stemming from any WP policy. Ungtss (talk) 08:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect This isn't an encyclopedia article. It's a repository of people making unanswered claims. An encyclopedia article would be "Roswell UFO incident" with a section on claims, or perhaps a citation saying "there are X many claims". Not this. This is just an assault of primary sources (in typical conspiracy theory fashion). Also, where are the lists of people who didn't see anything? I could be compelled to say keep if someone made a convincing argument that this article could and would be turned into a NPOV, concise and verifiable summary of the reports and discussion of their importance to the mythology as a whole. We don't need another page pretending the LGM are real. Protonk (talk) 09:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
transwiki although the Roswell status as the most well-known case in ufology makes these statements notable, this page doesn't really work as an encyclopedia article. WikiQuote would be more appropriate really. Oh my god I just agreed with Science Apologist... Totnesmartin (talk) 09:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikiquote. The Roswell UFO incident is arguably what set the whole UFO craze and associated conspiracy theories in motion. The witness accounts are an intricate part of that, but since they're entire first-hand not really suitable for Wikipedia. Wikiquote (or second choice wikisource) are a better place (don't forget to link in the main article) - Mgm|^(talk) 13:26, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was one of the main contributors to the page, and felt it was needed. But as time went on, I realized that this is no longer a useful page. That's because most if not all claims on this page are open to dispute. Even by pro-Roswell researchers. And while the numbers of witnesses found here may seem impressive, the number of first-hand witnesses is quite small. On the main Roswell page (which needs to be cut down, I agree), most of the broad themes mentioned here are spelled out. I'm not sure we really need to know a raft of intricate details about all these witnesses. And we certainly don't need a page which has something like 70 accounts. Many of which (such as the alien ones) are contradictory and can't be referring to the same incident. Canada Jack (talk) 18:04, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki & delete, this unencyclopedic quotefarm per WP:NOT. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 09:15, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki & delete KillerChihuahua^?!? 06:33, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki relevant content to WikiQuote. Per WP:NOT:

Wikipedia articles are not:

Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional). If you want to enter lists of quotations, put them into our sister project Wikiquote. Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic, for example Nixon's Enemies List. Wikipedia also includes reference tables and tabular information for quick reference. Merged groups of small articles based on a core topic are certainly permitted. (See Lists (stand alone lists) - appropriate topics for clarification.)

--siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 15:22, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 00:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Melbourne's longest cake

Non-notable fundraising event. A worthy cause no doubt, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a promotional tool for charities Mattinbgn\^talk 03:34, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 03:36, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--the article is completely unencyclopedic in tone and content. Drmies (talk) 03:42, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability for this local event. JJL (talk) 05:00, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Notability is lacking, but more worrying is using wikipedia as a media center. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 06:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It might be non-notable, but the reasons provided here are less than convincing. Tone can be edited and you obviously can't promote a past event. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:23, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be an annual event, therefore it seems obvious to me at least that publicising last years event is promoting next years, no? -- Mattinbgn\^talk 21:49, 25 December 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. — Aitias // discussion 21:32, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pioneers of Prosperity

The article does not meet any of the Wikipedia:Notability guidelines. Most of the references provided are from "Pioneers of Prosperity" or its affiliates. Was proposed for deletion by another user on early November for the same reasons, the template was removed without any subsequent improvement. I also suspect a WP:COI because the main (only) contributors for the page Special:Contributions/MNITMi, Special:Contributions/Mbrennan10 and Special:Contributions/Elizabeth.alton have all contributed exclusively to this article. Piccolo Modificatore Laborioso (talk) 06:59, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 07:10, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can anyone read the allafrica citations? WillOakland (talk) 07:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 23:44, 20 December 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} 03:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep--The article is not very good, sure, but there are a few references out there to establish at least some notability: here and here. Drmies (talk) 04:00, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. While the text reads like a press release, it also makes a fairly strong and apparently sourced case for notability. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:13, 24 December 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. Closing per obvious consensus. — Aitias // discussion 04:38, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pokemon Quartz

Contested prod. Hack with no assertion of notability. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:59, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Possibly speedy. Not notable. Malinaccier (talk) 03:20, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoax, no sources, not notable hack even if it does exist. TJ Spyke 03:27, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No references provided, speedy delete. Newport Beach (talk) 05:02, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The haxxors are invading! Tavix (talk) 05:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MuZemike (talk) 07:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete and probably not a hoax as it probably exists. Definitely not notable and not worthy of an article here for apparent reasons. MuZemike (talk) 07:48, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Scrape it against a porcelain plate until it is no-more.--Koji† 19:53, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy Delete (A7)~~ Strong Delete - I don't see an assertion of notability here... VX!^~~~ 20:21, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Looks like a NN hack to me. Never asserts notability. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 21:06, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - completely unencyclopedic Jason Quinn (talk) 21:55, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 00:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guacimal

I created this article, and even I believe that it should be deleted. It provides little to no context, and has barely been edited at all. Dylan 620 _Contribs ^Sign! 23:58, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a possible miss-spelling of Guasimal, Cuba?--Oakshade (talk) 00:37, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you've got the right idea, but the wrong Guasimal. See my entry below. TheFeds 04:27, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep this location exists. Simply because the author wants it deleted doesn't mean that it necessarily should be deleted. As WP:OWN says, no author owns any article. travb (talk) 01:30, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If it exists, prove it. Surely you can find a reference that it exists in the next seven days. --Golbez (talk) 02:36, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hourglass is half empty, and you've made no attempt. --Golbez (talk) 02:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Wikipedia:There_is_no_deadline LinguistAtLarge 22:20, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Wikipedia:AFDs end after seven days. --Golbez (talk) 05:53, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cuba Jason Rees (talk) 01:40, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless verification is found that this place exists. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:04, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is Guasimal, Pinar del Río the same place? [4][5][6] (This seems to be in Pinar del Río, instead of Camagüey, like Oakshade's link.) If so, then move to an article on Guasimal, Pinar del Río, Cuba and redirect if evidence exists that Guacimal is a valid alternative name. (If kept on this basis, I presume that notability will be established independently—whatever the standard is for places.) TheFeds 04:27, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, Delete: The only evidence that the place exists are from wiki sites. I have found a Guacimal in Honduras, Costa Rica, Colombia, and Haiti... but no Cuba. --Sallicio^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 01:41, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fancy seeing you here, Sallicio. :P Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 02:50, 24 December 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 02:25, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm not certain, but it seems to exist. There may be something I'm missing... Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 02:50, 24 December 2008 (UTC) [reply]
- ~~Your link gives information to a city in Honduras, not Cuba. Malinaccier (talk) 03:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]
- Delete as per everyone else. One big misunderstanding here, it seems. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 21:32, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I would say keep, but nothing can be found to verify that the place exists. Malinaccier (talk) 03:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sorry, no Cuban city by that name appears to be on the map. Ecoleetage (talk) 04:05, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Maybe the hurricanes wiped the city off the map? Tavix (talk) 05:35, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence has been provided by the keep crowd. StonerDude420 (talk) 07:08, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--From a news source from Cuba we can establish that: Guasinal has a population of 5,000; The foundation of the town dates to 1864; Che Guevara established his first guerrilla camp near the town.--Jmundo (talk) 07:29, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per WP:NGL, every geographic location or entity that has a name and a verified location is suitable for inclusion as a topic for an article in Wikipedia. As noted, and thanks to Jmundo, that the piece is sourced and referenced makes this one an easy Keep. Nice job ShoesssS ^Talk 11:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There is still the small matter that this article is about Guacimal, and the sources are about Guasimal. Do we have any evidence that any of the information in this article applies to Guasimal? This looks more to me as if we should delete this and start an article on Guasimal from scratch. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree fully. Delete Guacimal and start new article on the Guasimal, in the Sancti Spíritus Province where Che Guevara setup camp, using Jmundo's source from the reliable source Escambray. I have modified my entry for delete to reflect this. Thanks! --Cerejota (talk) 13:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and start new article on Guasimal, Sancti Spíritus Jmundo's source seems to be for a different place: Guasimal, in the Sancti Spíritus Province. The place identified as being affected by a hurricane in the article in question (and hence the article name) is a Guacimal in the Pinar del Río Province. The difference was already noted by others in this AfD, including the possibility of one Guasimal/Guacimal in the Camagüey Province. While it is not unusual for reliable sources to misspell name places, nor it is unusual for the same name for a place to happen in different areas of the same country (even with slightly different spellings), until we have more reliable sources for verification of which of the many Guasimal/Guacimal this article refers to am afraid we have to delete. We must not add to the confussion in the googletubes. However, if new sources emerge that clearly disambiguate the situation, and establish that a Guacimal in the Pinar del Río exists and was affected by a hurricane, then I am all for keep, as per WP:NGL. All I am saying is that we should pay more attention to spellings and other geo-identification before taking whatever the googletubes say at face value. Thanks! --Cerejota (talk) 13:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I created Guasimal, Sancti Spíritus with Jmundo's source. Regardless of the result of this AfD, that's a new article. I used the province name in the title as there are obvious disambiguation issues with this town name as per MoS. Thanks! --Cerejota (talk) 13:37, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is yet another Guasimal in the Matanzas Province as per this [7]. This is clearly a disambiguation issue. Furthermore, the article for Sancti Spíritus (the city, not province) already mentioned Guasimal as part of the municipality. I wiki-linked it to the new article. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 13:46, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment --The mysterious case of Guacimal...Looking back to my "googletube", the only reference I can find about Guacimal, Cuba is a french book published in 1842, "The Natural History of Cuba", says that Guacimal is a lagoon. I'm trying to verify this information in another source.--Jmundo (talk) 22:06, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENTIt's really too bad no one's getting paid for all the research going into this!--Sallicio ^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 21:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, we all wish! Seriously, this is what AfDs should be about... figuring it out! Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 01:30, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Even if it's a lagoon it's notable I'm afraid. --Balloholic (talk) 16:24, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A lagoon according to a single reference from 1842. --Golbez (talk) 21:06, 25 December 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. — Aitias // discussion 17:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P2pr

Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms - The use of neologisms should be avoided in Wikipedia --smurdah (talk) 02:22, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO. I couldn't find any reliable sources. Tavix (talk) 05:36, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete. The article describes an emerging approach related to viral marketing that may well become big and does not seem to be covered elsewhere. Not sure that this is the most common name for it. A quick search showed a couple of other uses for P2pr. If the authors improved the description and came up with a few unbiased references, and maybe changed to a more meaningful name (Social Web Marketing?) I would be inclined to change to keep. Aymatth2 (talk) 21:29, 24 December 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 00:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hidious In Strength

Apparently non-notable band by apparently non-notable artist. Article's only reference is not independant of the subject, therefore not reliable. The article itself basically says the band is non-notable. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 02:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to this nomination Sleep Chamber, also for non-notability, and that it is a WP:Coatrack for negative BLP information about John Zewizz. (note: first three !votes below mine were added before bundling this article to this nomination.Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 00:37, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Coatrack is a controversial essay, as the template at the top of this essay states: "Heed them or not at your own discretion." On the other hand, Wikipedia:Content forking, a content guideline, states: "Since what qualifies as a "POV fork" is itself based on a POV judgement, do not refer to forks as "POV" except in extreme cases of persistent disruptive editing." This rule nulifies WP:Coatrack. travb (talk) 17:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't there be an AfD notification template placed on the Sleep Chamber article page as well, since its deletion is being debated now? Quaeler (talk) 17:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both (as nominator). Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 00:42, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as per nominator. JamesBurns (talk) 06:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If there is no assertion of notability, it seems to be a good candidate for a speedy as db-band. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 05:08, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:34, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (non-bold). It seems like if the Sleep Chamber article meets notability, so would too a hypothetical article on its founder - John Zewizz. Were the original author of this article gifted with a shred of tactics, they would have made an article for Zewizz as a keystone to the support for this article (which concerns one of Zewizz's project - generating a non-trivial amount of material). We should look past their lack of planning and keep this article in exchange for a promise from them (should they ever pop up to defend their article) to write the Zewizz article posthaste. Quaeler (talk) 16:22, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep (Sleep Chamber) Hmmm.. i'm not sure about the non-notability of Sleep Chamber; it depends on what metric we want to use, of course, but i can go to Amazon.com or Ebay and find items from their catalog for sale which would appear to make it 'legitimate' and therefore 'notable', in my opinion; further, they were prolific and seemingly 'known' in their subculture (while not particularly involved with that subculture, i'd at least heard of them during the late 1980s).

As far as being a coatrack - this is a slippery slope; the article is a literary masterpiece in neither style nor content, by any stretch of the imagination, but it is addressing a (again, imo) notable act and appears to feature no more bias than any other article written by someone who cares enough about a topic to bother writing an article. Quaeler (talk) 08:20, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (also non-bold) - There seems to be a contradiction if this article exists but an article for John Zewizz does not. A Google search does seem to indicate that John Zewizz is mildly notable. It seems that in a perfect world this article would be a redirect to a subsection in a John Zewizz article. It is unclear if even John Zewizz himself achieves notability sufficient for Wikipedia by my standards but he seems to have more notability than many of the fringe artists that has passed the notability for their articles at Wikipedia so I will give him the benefit of the doubt. So until a John Zewizz article appears for a redirect, I have a weak keep opinion. Jason Quinn (talk) 21:47, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable in every way, shape, and form. According to the "article", this group barely exists at all. Proxy User (talk) 04:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC. Barely-existant: only releases were "limited edition" self-released cassette tapes. If this were about a current band it would have been speedied in about 10 seconds. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:BAND by an impressive margin. Arguing WP:COATRACK is a not too subtle smokescreen for glossing over the fact that there is nothing here worth saving. Trusilver 02:29, 30 December 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. Mr.Z-man 01:25, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SLYT

Neologism. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 06:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 07:15, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sole source is Urban Dictionary, which is in no way reliable. Totnesmartin (talk) 21:45, 19 December 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.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Aitias // discussion 17:43, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spells in Power Rangers: Mystic Force

A list of fictional spells that consists entirely of plot details. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:06, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:36, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:36, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, garbage. Delete. StonerDude420 (talk) 07:05, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Whatever the source for this is can be used as external link in the main article. If there is no source, it's original research. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:16, 24 December 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 all. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 00:36, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

April Fools Day 2006

Article is an unencyclopedic list of assorted jokes made by the media on April Fools' Day in 2006. Wikipedia is WP:NOT an indiscriminate list of what Homestar runner and various news networks did for April 1. Reywas92 ^Talk 00:58, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Delete an indiscriminate list of non-notable jokes made by notable people. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A unified approach to April Fools' lists / group nomination might be in order:

April 1, 1999, redirects to April 1999. One single real event listed for April 1
April 1, 2000 a short year page only listing hoaxes.
April 1, 2001 ???
April 1, 2002 a longer year page only listing hoaxes.
April 1, 2003, redirected to April 2003. Events listed for April 1 are a mix of actual news and hoaxes
April 1, 2004, redirected to April 2004#April 1, 2004, only actual news are listed with a mention that it was April Fools day. 2004 hoaxes are currently hidden in a previous version
April 1, 2005 a year page with actual news and hoaxes
April 1, 2006, redirects to this list (you have to look at April 2006 for actual events)
April 1, 2007, redirects to April Fools Day 2007, which is actually a shorter list of hoaxes than this one
April 1, 2008, redirects to April Fools Day 2008 is massive, and actually spawned a child article even.

MickMacNee (talk) 01:55, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a guide to every April Fools Day. Whats next, "Christmas 2008"?. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:04, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've raised the issue on Talk:April Fools' Day anyway, see this talk page section (permalink) MickMacNee (talk) 02:05, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. Those voting delete obviously have no sense of humor. Articles like this help set Wikipedia apart from other encyclopedias. And I despise mass nominations in general.SPNic (talk) 03:05, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Having a dislike of bundled AFD nominations is not a valid reason to keep. Oh, and also, I have a great sense of humor. Wanna hear a joke? Knock! Knock! MuZemike (talk) 07:54, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - And WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which most of the delete votes, reek of, is not a valid reason to delete. The articles are sourced. I hope MickMacNee can do something (I wish I had some ideas, but thoughtlessly deleting this stuff is not the answer.SPNic (talk) 13:46, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Who said we don't like April Fools? I personally think it's a laugh riot with the hoax newspaper articles and the Rickrolling and what-not. Maybe you should assume good faith and not try to paint everything with such a broad brush. MuZemike (talk) 15:36, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - It's hard to assume good faith when somebody's reason for deleete is because it's "a depressing precedent".SPNic (talk) 17:02, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, the reason for my deletion vote, as stated, is that I believe the article is not notable. The precedent that it sets, of creating indiscriminate lists of information that will most likely never be searched for, was an afterthought... but probably should not have been posted. I'm sorry if I gave you the impression that this was an attack. I certainly didn't intend it that way. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 23:58, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted. Transwikiiing isn't a bad idea.SPNic (talk) 00:24, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and I'm sorry if I got out of line.75.105.224.214 (talk) 02:49, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- - - - Well, sorry, but you got to try to. We're all trying to improve the quality of the encyclopedia in one way or another. MuZemike (talk) 18:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Maybe I'm humorless as well, but I don't find long lists of corny jokes funny, and I certainly don't find long lists of trivia funny. Wikipedia is different for lots of reasons, and one of the reasons we don't always get a lot of respect is 'fun stuff' like this. Drmies (talk) 04:09, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the whole lot. Not notable, ~~and quite frankly a depressing precedent~~. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 05:22, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if I remember right, I was the one that moved the article from April 1, 2006 to April Fools day. All it does is list a bunch of jokes, deletable under WP:IINFO. Tavix (talk) 05:39, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:IINFO StonerDude420 (talk) 07:09, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all — after looking at a couple, this is nothing but indiscriminate information. MuZemike (talk) 07:54, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to wikinews. The majority of the entries here are newsitems (or faked newsitems) so it would be suitable for WikiNews to keep them on record. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Another thing I should note is that Wikipedia itself does April Fool's Day jokes.SPNic (talk) 15:21, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Change to transwiki all as MacGyverMagic recommended. This does fit better in Wikinews. I probably should've thought of that before. Oh, well. MuZemike (talk) 18:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My initial thought was that these should all be kept, although edited down to include only the sourced entries. There is some significance in a reputable organization departing from its usual practice in order to play a prank. After reading the article April Fools' Day, however, it appears to have more than adequate coverage of the most noteworthy of these events. I don't consider myself humorless (I am humourless, but that's because of Anglophobia). However, these lists are so sprawling that they are like an unbearably long joke, too detailed to be informative or entertaining. Ultimately, it is of no significance whether a prank was conducted in 2006, 2007 or 2008. Mandsford (talk) 14:56, 26 December 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. copyvio Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:34, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jaywant Guitar

Original research, and possible spam. The only editor is Jaywantguitar (talk · contribs). Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:35, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete:One big cut-and-paste copyvio of http://www.jaywantguitar.com/guitar.html and spam as well. ^Law_shoot! 01:04, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So tagged, then. Thanks for the heads up. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:19, 24 December 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. — Aitias // discussion 21:33, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Norm Hitzges

Delete nn local radio sports personality; so nn, we don't even know when or where he was born or what he's done other than his current gig. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:07, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A7 No assertation of notability at all. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:17, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A7 was already declined by another admin, but I see no particular reason to keep this article in its current state--Fails WP:ENTERTAINER Jclemens (talk) 07:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Hitzges is a notable Dallas sportscaster. He used to do Texas Ranger color commentary (and please, don't AFD simply because he worked for the Rangers), and has been on Dallas radio for 20-30 years. He's also written several books about Dallas sports teams. Give his article time to become fleshed out. BrownHornet21 (talk) 04:23, 22 December 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) 00:23, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:35, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~I cant say "rewrite" here because this article hasn't even been written, it's not even of stub quality yet. It's a single sentence.~~ The subject is notable however with significant coverage from multiple reliable sources. Some referenced biographical info has been added along with a list of books he's written.--Rtphokie (talk) 02:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as subject easily crosses verifiability and notability thresholds, author of editor of several sports books, host of various television shows over the years, and is himself the subject of significant coverage from multiple reliable sources. - Dravecky (talk) 03:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:37, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With the improvement to the article it now demonstrates the subjects notability.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:43, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Article now easily demonstrates notability. MuZemike (talk) 18:34, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - If you have been honored by the Radio Hall of Fame, Dallas Hall of Sports Association, and the Texas Baseball Hall of Fame, he must have done some notable things. Yet I still think biographies need more notability than is usually required for inclusion in Wikipedia and he doesn't seem that highly notable. However, as his credentials are as good if not better than many other biographies on Wikipedia, I vote weak keep. Jason Quinn (talk) 22:03, 24 December 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. Closing per obvious consensus. — Aitias // discussion 02:10, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of opera accompanists

Was CSD'd three times. I was hesitant to delete it again as the community hasn't weighed in on this yet. So go forth, community, and weigh in. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 00:16, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete No need for this list - yet - when there are more notable accompanists with articles then maybe. ukexpat (talk) 01:27, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:36, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:36, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Uh, the list consists of one person? Ecoleetage (talk) 01:46, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looking at the Google cache and the log contents, there doesn't seem to have been much improvement. Relevant discussion here. Nevard (talk) 03:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Should not have been brought here. There are articles speedied that have been deleted many, many more than 3 times before. There is no context, and it is nonsense (looks like a resume) UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:17, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt — Yeah, this is getting ridiculous. It seems that the (dare I claim same) user keeps spamming the same person over and over again. Time to pull the plug on this act and salt the Earth of its remains. MuZemike (talk) 07:56, 24 December 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. Closing per obvious consensus. — Aitias // discussion 02:14, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thankstaking

Only one reference, probably not notable. --smurdah (talk) 00:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as Neologism or hoax. The article which is referenced asks a rhetorical question in the title, and does not announce or formalize any new holiday. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 00:26, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neologism, POV pushing, weasel words, you name it. Basically, this article is trash, and it doesn't look salvageable. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:39, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable, possibly POV pushing. Malinaccier (talk) 03:22, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The one source uses the expression in a different way. No evidence of the topic's existance at all. Redddogg (talk) 07:00, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 00:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Charles B. "Chuck" Greene

Delete. This article was deleted in 2006 under the name 'Chuck Greene' due to lack of notability. Nothing seems to have changed on this issue. The username of the creator indicates possible vanity entry. I PRODded it, but this was removed by the creator without giving a reason. Boleyn2 (talk) 06:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Please note this is a different AFD discussion and not part of the discussion regarding Bill Scott (author). As of my timestamp some formatting appears to be missing which is causing this AFD to appear as part of the Scott AFD. (If it's been fixed, please disregard this). 23skidoo (talk) 14:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC) Fixed. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:00, 19 December 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, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:36, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:37, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if gold medal at Maccabiah Games can be sourced. This seems to be a fairly major sporting event, and while, technically speaking, it doesn't satisfy WP:ATHLETE, I would certainly expect there to be enough dead tree sources to meet WP:BIO, especially in the light of the other college medals.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I meant to type "better sourced". Something a little more substantial than just a results listing. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:39, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If anyone can improve this article so it meets the requirements, please go ahead. It failed WP:BIO last time, but I don't know how well-written it was last time. I am concerned about the possible conflict of interests from the creator but my main objection is the lack of proof of notability. If anyone has heard of this person and thinks they are truly noteable, then please improve this article. Boleyn2 (talk) 09:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional Delete I haven't been able to find any cite about Greene winning a gold medal at the Maccabiah Games. For myself, this makes the difference between meeting the notability bar. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 09:16, 24 December 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. Withdrawn by nominator. Malinaccier (talk) 03:23, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nana Upstairs & Nana Downstairs

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Nana Upstairs & Nana Downstairs

Consists of a plot summary only, contains no information on the notability of the book. --smurdah (talk) 00:08, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:46, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I rewrote this article and included 2 claims of notability: 1) 30+ citations in other books related to the topic, 2) award-winning author. OK, make that 1 claim, as notability is generally not inherited. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw and Keep. davidwr has done good work on this article. Can an admin close this AfD? I'd like to withdraw my nomination. Thanks. --smurdah (talk) 03:15, 24 December 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. and I don't think re-listing again will bring closer to one. StarM 01:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interoperable PDK Libraries

Non-notable. i think this can be speedied, but there could be problems, so AFD. It seems to be promoting some sort of technology. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 06:37, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Not sure whether this is promoting a non-notable trade group or meant to promote a new technology; whatever it is, it seems not to be notable. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:12, 19 December 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, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:46, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability does not appear to be confirmed. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:48, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Two articles on the subject done by Reuters: [8], [9]. Also a few other articles from other websites that establish notability: [10], [11]. Definitely notable. Malinaccier (talk) 03:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't look notable. Delete StonerDude420 (talk) 07:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Malinaccier. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 00:32, 29 December 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. — Aitias // discussion 04:23, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moksha Yoga

No indication of notability at this day and time. Magog the Ogre (talk) 11:12, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete minor yoga school-cum-franchise. If it takes off it can be recreated, or perhaps just mentioned in a list of Yoga schools. Totnesmartin (talk) 21:43, 19 December 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) 00:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. StonerDude420 (talk) 07:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like a cut and paste job to me. Insufficient notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:58, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BELLZLLEB

Tagged and contested as a speedy deletion under CSD A7. This is a procedural nomination because there does not appear to be enough in the article to remove the request for deletion outright. I do not offer an opinion to keep or delete. --VS ^talk 11:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: With one album from Free Will Records and another from Crown Records, they have at least two albums from major indie labels, making them pass WP:BAND #5. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:01, 19 December 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) 00:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:MUSIC#C5. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:54, 29 December 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 02:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Game Design Brief

This is completely original research. The "literature" section does not suppport the article as third-party sources, other than perhaps as citations for an essay. Again, this would fall under original research. I can't imagine this could be rewritten to comply with Wikipedia guidelines, as whatever could be saved is already covered in Game design freshacconci talktalk 12:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. freshacconci talktalk 12:18, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - For now. I think the article is just kind of poorly-written for an encyclopedia (POV). I'm not a big gamer person, I'd suggest consulting some admin who knows that stuff. Ceran →(cheer→chime →carol) 13:46, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It looks like original research wrapped in a how to guide. Burzmali (talk) 20:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Definitely looks like original research and somewhat of a fork of Game Design. Edward321 (talk) 01:31, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or delete - It's too wordy for me to discern if there is anything worth keeping. If there is any salvageable content that's not redundant it should be inline referenced and merged with the Game design article in simple factual statements, without the instructions or suggestions. I don't see any reason to have a separate article for subject matter that clearly falls under that category.
Keep or merge to Game Design. Needs cleanup, but the basic content of the article is less a POV fork of Game Design than a superior (at least from a scholar standpoint) collection of information on the subject. Sources cited are legitimate. Claims made (while obscured to someone outside the industry) are valid. Definitely needs some love, though. Protonk (talk) 21:36, 23 December 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) 00:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OR Delete StonerDude420 (talk) 07:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How is it original research? Wikipedia doesn't require footnote or in text citations for all articles (And only recently required them for FAs). there are a half dozen sources cited that verify the claims made in the article. It isn't original research. Protonk (talk) 09:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Well, WP:OR is pretty clear on this, especially in the first paragraph on what original research is. And as for sources, WP:V is again pretty clear on sources. Both of these are WIkipedia policy. The sources provided only provide support as an original essay, not verification for a teriary source of information, such as Wikipedia. freshacconci talktalk 12:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm sorry, I don't understand what you are saying. I am telling you that the sources listed in that article verify the material in the article. This is explicitly allowed. This article isn't OR just because it is poorly written or poorly formatted. Protonk (talk) 19:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Those references listed specifically refer to the concept of "Game Design Brief"? If not, then this article is an essay, and therefore original research. If the references listed do specifically mention this concept, and no online versions are available, then the article would need to be extensively rewritten with excerpts from those texts. At this point the references merely support this as an essay. And if this is something that's already covered in Game design, I fail to see the point for a seperate article at this point. freshacconci talktalk 22:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Abstract from the title. Pretend that the title doesn't exist. Read the content and then read the references. The references support the claims made in the article, namely the interplay between conceptual and instrumental design, the explanation of the scope of "game design" and the discussion of "state space" in the last section (and others). Like I said in my original keep 'vote', we could move this content to Game design and the game design article would be improved. This is verifiable, sourced content and we should be editing to improve it rather than deleting it. Protonk (talk) 23:06, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Apparently Software design document is what this article means to talk about. If it gets merged, it should be merged there, as a smerge would be an unambiguous improvement. Protonk (talk) 08:04, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My impression is that the article is mistitled - it means that it is a brief upon Game Design. Software design document is not appropriate because it is talking about games, not software. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:36, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My impression is that the article means to be titled "Game Design Brief" quite literally, describing the document that outlines a game's design from the outset. In this case Software design document would be a possible broad parent, as would game design. Protonk (talk) 19:02, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Game design. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:36, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: pure WP:OR, lacking any sources to indicate WP:NOTE. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:43, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Protonk. Looks like it has all the elements to be a valid standalone article, just needs referencing and copyediting. Flagged for rescue. Jclemens (talk) 22:57, 28 December 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. I realize that this close is not consistent with some similar AFD's that have been closed (some by me?) in the past week or so. Please do not badger me about that. This closing only takes into account the contributions to this discussion, and not some ultimate goal of being globally consistent. Perhaps discuss the issue with the participants on their talk pages if you want to understand any reason for the difference in the outcome. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 00:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tara Street, Dublin

Delete Non-notable street Balloholic (talk) 15:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I would think any major street in the center of Dublin would be notable and is bound to have many sources (probably from books) describing its history. Even one of Dublin's major train stations is named after it, Tara Street railway station. --Oakshade (talk) 19:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: That cannot be verified Oakshade. They are even on different streets nowhere near one another. --Balloholic (talk) 01:05, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no inherent notability for streets. A street can, potentially, demonstrate enough notability to merit its own separate page, but the fame of a city isn't inherited by its individual thoroughfares. Until some significant content can be added, maybe this and the other articles can be merged into someting called "Streets of Dublin". Mandsford (talk) 20:12, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Stations tend to be named after the most important roads in a city. With a notable newspaper located there, the article presents more than just map information and a major road in a big city is bound to have paper sources. Deletion would not help that process. (WP:DEADLINE) Send this to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland or Wikipedia:WikiProject Roads (or move to project space) for improvement and renominate in a month if no improvement occurred. - Mgm|^(talk) 00:06, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As above station not on this street at all. A quick check will show that. Newspaper claims to have moved here two years ago and before that was elsewhere.If this newspaper changed address every few years would we give all fifty addresses their own article? Surely a list would be better. OR better still just include the most historic streets like where it was during the easter rising or civil war. What has happened on this street this past few years to make it notable more than all its othere addresses in its 150+ year existence?

Comment - Do they? I don't think so. Just because John Street Florists is located in Tralee doesn't mean the street is notable. As for the newspaper, no, this does not make a street notable. The paper may be notable, the railway station may be but it certainly does not make the street notable. --Balloholic (talk) 13:44, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not talking about florists, I'm talking about subway and railway stations. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:10, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:/ I really don't think Subway outlets are more notable than florists. It doesn't matter how many flowers or sandwiches that are sold, such things rarely make a street notable. You can buy a sandwich in John's Megastore down the road or Hammyland across the street. These aren't notable. --Balloholic (talk) 15:29, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By subway, he's referring to the railway station nearby, not the sandwich chain. It also has the headquarters of a major newspaper there - I think Talbot Street is where Independent Newspapers has theirs. Autarch (talk) 15:38, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dublin has a subway??? When was the last time you people were in Dublin? Those subway signs are for the sandwich chain not an underground train system! I smell fiction makers. --Balloholic (talk) 17:37, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably I'm talking about subway and railway stations refers to the DART. Please do not make comments like I smell fiction makers as it can create ill feeling. Autarch (talk) 20:37, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The DART is a relic. Surely we cannot have every single small stop on wikipedia? Never mind a street that happens to have a stop. By that theory every single street that has a rail or bus station in every little nook and cranny in Ireland should have an article. Even if there is nothing else to say. Again this is not a travel guide. I remind everyone that this is an encyclopedia and appeal to the COMMONSENSE of those non-Dubliners and possibly even non-Irish who aren't protecting their own personal creations. --Balloholic (talk) 22:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This one seems notable enough to my view... weak keep. Grutness...wha? 01:37, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral for the moment. Tara Street railway station is clearly notable, but it has its own article. I am not in a position to judge this one in advance of its being expanded. I am inclined to agree with Mgm. I do not think that Wikipedia:WikiProject Roads would be able to handle this, as it needs local knowledge, from a Dubliner. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:33, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See the following -WP:50k. --Balloholic (talk) 01:14, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Tara Street railway station has its own article. We don't need the street. Case dismissed. I expect to see this deleted. --Balloholic (talk) 22:22, 22 December 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) 00:06, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - stubbish, to be sure, but the article seems to be about a notable street. Lots of source material is available.[12] Wily D 17:22, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, google books reveal source material including a major part in the Irish Rebellion, a noteworthy firestation, and a noteworthy bathhouse. Pulsaro (talk) 17:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A noteworthy firestation?????!!!!!! How on earth can a firestation be noteworthy? A bathhouse? Surely one mention in a book does not make such a thing notable! I could write a book tomorrow about John's Megastore. Would that be notable then? --Balloholic (talk) 17:35, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you don't know how a firestation can be noteworthy maybe this is the wrong place for you. Pulsaro (talk) 18:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Depends on who published it. If Cambridge University Press did, then yes. If John's Vanity Publishing House and Pizzaria did, then no. I don't have a complete list. WilyD 17:36, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I see. So if Cambridge University Press (which very conveniently and coincidentally has its own article) mentions Tara Street in some sort of case study about an non-notable pregnant teenager in 1742 it automatically gets its own article."Tara Street is a Dublin street where the 15 year old human Beyoncé Aguilera became pregnant in 1742." Oh please spare me the crap. --Balloholic (talk) 18:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Of course, if you didn't insist on misrepresenting the reality of the situation, your explanation might make more sense. Wily D 18:16, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        The reality of the situation is that all of you want to keep something very obviously not notable because it was once mentioned in a Cambridge book. The book might have been published by a university in a different country but the writer may have irish interests or may have lived in Tara Street while she was a young child. The prestige of the brand doesnt make it notable. Thank you. --Balloholic (talk) 18:22, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        This is not true at all. There are a huge stack of books here, from many different publishers. I picked one at random as an example of notable publisher, it's not sacrosanct. The street is transparently notable in our jargon. It would behoove you to acquaint yourself with the facts before commenting on the situation. The link I gave listed 627 books which discuss Tara Street to some extent or another. Some are trivial mentions, some are not. But there are still dozens or hundreds of nontrivial discussions of it. Wily D 20:05, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - According to this webpage on the Dublin Fire Brigade website, the station in question was headquarters of said fire brigade from 1907. Also, this street was where artillery that bombarded Liberty Hall during the Easter Rising fired from. Autarch (talk) 20:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The link doesn't work I'm afraid and I think people need to realise that that part of the easter rising (which was a massive event) is insignificant. Every street in Dublin was affected by and streets in other towns. They would not get articles so why should this? --Balloholic (talk) 01:09, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - Link does not work. Tut tut. --Balloholic (talk) 23:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Link should work now. Autarch (talk) 18:26, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteOh please... Not every street is notable just because someone, somewhere once mentioned it in a publication. Trusilver 17:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep More pointy disruption without the slightest effort per WP:BEFORE - there isn't even a discussion page for this topic yet. A simple search of Google Scholar shows that there are numerous sources for this topic. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please delete. This page was created by a user who has a habit of creating Dublin streets and then doing his best to ensure every one of them, even ones that happen to connect two more notable ones and have no other purpose. Again we are not a source for tourists to plan their treks to the Dáil or Guinness brewery. --Balloholic (talk) 23:24, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looking at this article on the merits, it does seem that many streets in a major historic capital city which has been a focus for literature for centuries will be significant. It is not the width of the pavement that makes a street notable (usually), but the things that happen there, the places there, and the amount that ha been written about it. I'm glad someone is writing the articles, and I wish the same were done form any similarly important cities. The main thing this article needs is further expansion. DGG (talk) 06:20, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As for railroad stations and the like, there are two possibilities: usually a station is located in a place of considerable notability and named accordingly, or sometimes a notable neighborhood grows up or a street becomes important primarily because a station happens to have been built there with commerce and local transportation developing around it. Either way, the name of the station is usually a good indication about the street. DGG (talk) 06:37, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following makes no sense to me (and it's about one third of the entire article): "The station gives its' name to Tara Street railway station, though the station is on Georges Quay, near the northern end of Tara Street." This particular station mentioned three times in that sentence is never mentioned before and never mentioned again. The keep side of this debate seems tohinge on this and I have to say it is a very dubious statement. According to itself this mystery station which gives its name to another station isn't even located on this street! Neither is the station it gives its name to. We have two stations that don't even have any relevance to the subject being used as an argument for keeps. --Balloholic (talk) 15:58, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I moved it from Tara Street to Tara Street, Dublin. There are many streets with this name. Sheesh. Jack Merridew 10:01, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sources exist. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:38, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And are you not prepared to comment any further on the reliability of these sources or reply to what I have said above? As I have said before on many occasions sources are all well and good but they have to say something meaningful rather than be a weather report or an invesigation into the murder of a baby seal for example. You have as much as only voted and that contradicts policy. --Balloholic (talk) 18:42, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Snappy (talk) 07:37, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And if that is not a vote I'll eat my hat. I really don't need to say anymore. I actually mistook it as "Keep per Snappy" and was looking about searching for this Snappy before I realised. Definite crossing out here. --Balloholic (talk) 18:42, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. John254 00:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Dgg's point relates to the station which is one of two stations which aren't even on this street and cannot be verified to be named after it. Tara is a fairly popular name by my estimation, eg. Tara Television, Hill of Tara and there is another Tara Hill in Wexford to give some examples which just spring to mind because I know lots of Taras. Why would the station automatically be named after the street? Thanks. --Balloholic (talk) 01:41, 28 December 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 Llanon with no prejudice to restoring if new sources are found or there is a strong consensus to do so (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plas morfa

Non-notable location. If the hotel itself passes notability requirements then that should have an article, but notability is not inherited; the rest of of the place is, well, a beach. Ironholds (talk) 17:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Llanon - I've already added the meat of the article there. Beaches are rarely notable on their own, even if they do have a nice hotel. Totnesmartin (talk) 21:15, 19 December 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) 00:05, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:41, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Clearly the nominator is not taking into account factors such as the fishing pools mentioned which can be expanded and have historical significance. No need to focus on one hotel. --Balloholic (talk) 16:33, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Llanon. The beach, currently part of the village, can easily be included there, including the information on said ancient fishing pools. Although I did not find any sources about these fishing pools. Merger should consider that. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 13:49, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I think many beaches will be notable on their own--they are essentially parks, and all state parks at least are considered notable --there being inevitably sufficient documentation. But I am not quite sure this beach is prominent enough for that. I am surprised that anyone should have written an article of this sort without giving sources, especially since at least part of the article is clearly asked on them. I added what English sources I could find quickly on google (there are also some in Welsh, but I was forced to ignore them) . The BBC source has information of the pools. DGG (talk) 22:46, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Oh yes beaches can be notable on their own (at least I hope so, I wrote an article about one!), but as with anything else, there has to be enough citable material to make it worth having an article. nature reserve beaches, major tourist and historic beaches are all notable. The thing is, is this beach worth an article, or can it be combined with Llanon? The BBC page you mention is about Llanon, which seems to undermine the case for notability (nice find though). Totnesmartin (talk) 23:30, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:14, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Baby Ranks

Non-notable artist, per WP:MUSIC. This page has been deleted at least twice, along with the article for his only album. Please add salt. SummerPhD (talk) 18:02, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 19:35, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 19:35, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I found this over on Google News, but my Spanish isn't up to par relevant? Burzmali (talk) 19:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That looks like a useful third-party review. I'm not sure if it's enough to save the article, though. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah it's relevant. Primera Hora is roughly like the New York Post for Puerto Rico, not the newspaper of record, but a top seller and clearly reliable. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 06:01, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: recreated article, non-notable as per WP:MUSIC. JamesBurns (talk) 06:57, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The album, for which he gets co-billing with Luny Tunes, Mas Flow 2, was reviewed in The New York Times, was one of the top charting Latin albums of the year, and a single from it won him a Billboard Latin Music Award. I suspect those things were not noted on the previous version of the article, but I've now reliably sourced them. All of the sources I added confirm that Baby Ranks has co-billing. It's a keep. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:26, 22 December 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) 00:05, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - He is notable as per WP:MUSIC - if winning in the Billboard Latin Music Awards doesn't meet #8, what does? That said, he meets other notability criteria for Puerto Rico, a distinct musical market than the USA regardless of the political relationship. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 05:55, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes WP:MUSIC#C2 as well [13]. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 06:13, 26 December 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. — Aitias // discussion 04:25, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inactive decision making

Just as with Responsible decision making, which I just nominated for deletion, I believe this is not a notable term in any academic field; though this one additionally also looks like a neologism. Korny O'Near (talk) 21:24, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reactive decision making. Owen× ☎ 17:59, 23 December 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) 00:04, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all three Non-encyclopedic. OwenX says it best, we don't need articles for every possible phrase, even if the phrase is used frequently. This does not fit any criteria for inclusion under Wikipedia's guidelines. Anything here that may need to be kept should be moved to Decision making, but I don't see anything other than essay content, or explanation of an essay really, in any of the three articles. Clear delete of all three, and I am copying this to each one. Theseeker4 (talk) 01:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all three As per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reactive decision making. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 05:27, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all three of these articles as apparently one man's theory and as uninformative bollocks. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant usage and is an oxymoron. Decision making is so much simpler when you follow WP:BEFORE and examine the sources. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:41, 24 December 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. — Aitias // discussion 02:12, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Responsible decision making

This doesn't seem to be a notable term in any field. Korny O'Near (talk) 21:17, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reactive decision making. Owen× ☎ 17:59, 23 December 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) 00:04, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all three Non-encyclopedic. OwenX says it best, we don't need articles for every possible phrase, even if the phrase is used frequently. This does not fit any criteria for inclusion under Wikipedia's guidelines. Anything here that may need to be kept should be moved to Decision making, but I don't see anything other than essay content, or explanation of an essay really, in any of the three articles. Clear delete of all three, and I am copying this to each one. Theseeker4 (talk) 01:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all three As per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reactive decision making. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 05:24, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all three of these articles as original research and as uninformative bollocks. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:10, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have rewritten the article as a stub with a source. There are thousands of other sources. AFD is not cleanup. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:36, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But why have multiple articles when you can have just one? This is original research at its worse. Thanks! --Cerejota (talk) 01:32, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 00:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reactive decision making

This is the third in a trifecta of articles, which also includes responsible decision making and inactive decision making, all created by the same user, which I think are pointless and non-notable terms. Korny O'Near (talk) 21:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately, Wikipedia is not an encyclopaedia of things that individual editors subjectively consider to be pointless and non-notable, and Wikipedia's concept of notability is not subjective. You are not making an argument for notability here, and your rationale is a poor one.
And even if you were applying Wikipedia's criteria for notability, your opinion would be ill-founded, given that their are plenty of sources on business management that discuss types of decision making such as this, and the reasons that one is used over the other. One such is ISBN 9780787976361 (an entire book on the subject of decision making) which discusses reactive decision making and the problems that it engenders for a business, in detail on pages 16–17 in a section entitled "Reacting Versus Responding". Another such is ISBN 9780803955110 which has a section explicitly entitled "reactive decision making" on pages 355–356. A third is ISBN 9780805847154, which has a section entitled "Proactive and Reactive Decisions" on pages 5–6. There are even papers dealing with these and related subjects on-line on the World Wide Web, such as this one.
By policy, we are supposed to look for sources ourselves before nominating articles for deletion on grounds of notability or verifiability. Had you done so here, you would have turned up the above and many others. Your nomination was an exceedingly poor one.
I've restored Proactive decision making, previously deleted via Proposed Deletion, on the grounds that it actually covers the obverse of this coin, and contains useful content that can be built upon. Both of these subjects, the one being the obverse of the other, satisfy the Primary Notability Criterion. They might be better dealt with together (as on-line and off-line are), but that doesn't require deletion in any way. (Even if Wikipedia's treatment of the subjects is merged, these original titles are sensible redirect titles.) Keep. Uncle G (talk) 23:16, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Uncle G. John254 07:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no substantial content. The articles don't attempt to be more than a paragraph appropriate to a very elementary textbook, making superficial unsourced value judgments and not giving sources. I don't see them as plausible bases for an article. DGG (talk) 13:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So you don't see Wikipedia discussing proactive and reactive decision making despite the existence of sources explicitly discussing those very things, some of which are cited above? Uncle G (talk) 15:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all three, and leave Proactive decision making deleted too. No one disputes the fact that such decision making modes exist and are discussed in the literature, but having an article dedicated to the phrase "Responsible decision making" makes as much sense as having one for the term "Driving with your eyes open". Uncle G: If you want to add a section in Decision making to discuss these terms, it may make more sense. It currently has a poorly-written section called "Styles and methods of decision making" which definitely needs some serious editing. Owen× ☎ 17:58, 23 December 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) 00:04, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all three Non-encyclopedic. OwenX says it best, we don't need articles for every possible phrase, even if the phrase is used frequently. This does not fit any criteria for inclusion under Wikipedia's guidelines. Anything here that may need to be kept should be moved to Decision making, but I don't see anything other than essay content, or explanation of an essay really, in any of the three articles. Clear delete of all three, and I am copying this to each one. I would also remind Uncle G to assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Theseeker4 (talk) 01:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I also find OwenX's argument persuasive: even if the content would prove to be notable, they would be better in Decision making as a subsection, or even unified in a sourced Decision making concepts if Decision making becomes to large (as per WP:SUMMARY). Uncle G is being WP:OWNy and not seeing that while this content might have value, it doesn't have value as single articles, and that the community already has had successful experiences, such as WP:SUMMARY, to deal with related concepts with an article. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 05:22, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all three No notability is claimed, in fact, no sources are used at all. It is true notability is not subjective, but it is not established by expert opinion, either. Specific, verifiable, claims of notability have to be made by notable reliable sources in the field. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 05:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OR 'Delete the three. Sounds like someone vomited up a management textbook. StonerDude420 (talk) 07:16, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If you're going to vote delete, at least explain why you think adding Uncle G's references wouldn't help. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:08, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all three of these articles as original research and as uninformative bollocks. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, it can't BOTH be Original Research and a regurgitated management textbook. Uncle has shown potential for expansion, and even if it could be merged somewhere, that's no reason to delete a topic which passes the GNG by itself. Furthermore it's not just a random phrase, many google book hits show it as a topic or subtopic in its own right. For example Quantitative Geography. Weak keep because the article itself is weak right now and not much would be lost by deletion. Pulsaro (talk) 17:35, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are hundreds of scholarly references to this. It is therefore a sensible search term and so deletion is quite inappropriate. If the current content is poor then we improve in accordance with our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:18, 24 December 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 EPM. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 00:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Epm

Non-notable file format, created this December. Delete. (Contested WP:PROD.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 21:53, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does not appear to be notable given that it was created this month. Redirect to EPM. --Itub (talk) 16:33, 23 December 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) 00:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to EPM. Not notable. Malinaccier (talk) 03:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:42, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to EPM: How notable can a format created this month be? There are no references demonstrating notability, and the edit history shows this to be a vanity page in that the page was created by the creator of the format. In addition, the Internet Media Type asserted for this format is not registered at http://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/application/ leading to doubts about the accuracy of the contents of this document at the most basic level. CrispMuncher (talk) 19:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Post War Blues

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability on Google. I also can't find any sources on Google News and Google Books. Fails WP:CORP. Schuym1 (talk) 23:09, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Just added a few facts to the article for all those Wikipedia notability fans out there not knowing too much about blues, its artists, labels and publications and instead seem to believe in the Google God ("Wer Wahrheit sucht, darf nicht die Stimmen zählen" Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, 1646–1716 (My translation: Who seeketh truth might not tally votes ;-) StefanWirz (talk) 16:39, 20 December 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) 00:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:43, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:43, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

C'mon boys (and girls?) - What about a hefty notability discussion !?! Or do I have to wait until you're all sitting in front of your screen at your working place again not knowing what else to do with your hours of work ;-) StefanWirz (talk) 17:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: agree with nominator. JamesBurns (talk) 02:35, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Would you please take into account that the article has been heavily expanded in order to eludicate the notability of that label since the nominator did his nomination ... StefanWirz (talk) 18:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of notability. --Gavin Collins (talk) 14:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Did I read somewhere that Afd-nominated articles should be discussed (even thoroughly discussed), not only voted pro or con ?!? The article now contains 1. a discography, 2. a list of that label's roster of artists, eight of them being notable enough to have an own Wikipedia article (blue links), 3. hints on liner notes by (at least two) notable authors (Paul Oliver, Charles Radcliffe), 4. two references (reviews) stating the notability of the label's output - one by a worldwide accepted blues authority (Keith Briggs). Don't know what else might be lacking to prove 'notability' ! StefanWirz (talk) 19:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. The article is very poorly written, but that alone isn't a reason for deletion. A google search revealed enough information to suggest that the organization exists but I'm not totally convinced of its notability. Trusilver 01:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I had to add the founders name to the search but found these four books which should help explain the man, the label and their mission. Blues players are well-known for not being well-known. Many have existed and died making only those who bought rights to their music rich. this seems to be a piece of that lost puzzle showing someone who tried to help document the art form. This, this, this and this might also help. -- Banjeboi 02:23, 30 December 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 Centralia,_Pennsylvania#Mine_fire. where the content is already discussed. Content under the re-direct if someone wants to add more. If he's "soley responsible" for why Centralia is notable, then it's all the more reason for him to be merged -- since census designated places will be kept. It's a case of BLP1E that doesn't require being kept to discuss a merge elsewhere when there's consensus here (with the first keep becoming a merge) to merge it. StarM 01:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Domboski

Person is notable for only one event and per WP:1E this is insufficient to warrant an entire article. Nouse4aname (talk) 23:24, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This person is solely responsible for why Centralia, PA is notable. He is not responsible for only one event (falling into sinkhole), as WP:1E states, but was the springboard and catalyst for everything surrounding Centralia and the media attention given to such. If the references in his article are read, it clearly identifies Domboski for his initial incident and subsequent media attention garnered after the prior attention. Mrmcdonnell (talk) 22:30, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- That makes no sense. This person is only referred to in the context of falling into a hole in Centralia. This is one event, and can be covered in the main Centralia article. Nouse4aname (talk) 12:17, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Are you suggesting to merge it? Mrmcdonnell (talk) 16:08, 22 December 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) 00:02, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Put info back into Centralia, PA main article if Domboski fails to meet notability requirements. Mrmcdonnell (talk) 04:57, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Seconded, as per WP:BLP1E, individual is only associated with a single event, and therefore fails notability requirement. Jo7hs2 (talk) 01:14, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So is this being merged or what? Mrmcdonnell (talk) 12:25, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:46, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:46, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep merging should be discussed elsewhere. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 00:00, 29 December 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:49, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frarority

An unnotable WP:NEOLOGISM. It "has not established widespread use in established media to describe coeducational fraternal and cooperative living groups and organizations" Tavix (talk) 23:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable WP:NEO due to lack of significant worldwide usage as a term as well as zero gNews hits. The 1st hit also comes up as an UrbanDictionary entry, which is never a good sign. MuZemike (talk) 00:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep or~~ Merge I added the one source. There seemed to be other evidence of its usage. I think a merge somewhere would be reasonable, but a deletion would be unfortunate. It's not just a word, but also part of cultural change. Fraternities are historic institutions that have been very controversial. How to, and whether to, integrate social instutions will continue to be an issue. This term reflects that and there's some substance and sourcing to be had to reflect that. Again, it's not STRONG, but I think it's worth including at least as part of a merger to Fraternity or somewhere else. It's possible that someone would look up this term and want to know what it's about. That's what an encyclopedia is all about. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:44, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed a web search and a google news search [14] indicates the term is fairly well established and has a significant cultural and historical meaning that goes beyond a dicdef. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:49, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as neologism and original research. The only reference provided is a college publication, which cannot be considered significant enough for inclusion. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 17:43, 20 December 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) 00:02, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-"Frarority" is merely a colloquial term for a Co-ed professional or service fraternity and it is covered well in both of those articles.Joeycfc (talk) 00:27, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article actually provides reasoning for me claiming the word has not established widespread use in established media. That was an easy one. ^Law_shoot! 01:08, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Simply a neologism. Malinaccier (talk) 03:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was going to found something like this when I was in college, but I was going to call it "saturnity." Nice, huh? This "frarority" is at best a neologism, and needs no article in WP. Drmies (talk) 04:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non notable neologism VX!^~~~ 20:25, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete - non-notable neologism. article itself seems to assert non-notability. Jason Quinn (talk) 22:05, 24 December 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/Molecular Gravity}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Refused discography}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moves Me E.P}}