Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 September 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion‎ | Log

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 04:34, 5 April 2022 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
< September 28 September 30 >

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. henrik•talk 21:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mercedes Benz SA codes

[edit]
Mercedes Benz SA codes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a buyer's guide. Corvus cornixtalk 23:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are thousands of workshops around the world who would like to reference option codes for repairs, SCN coding, software flashing / enabling and do not have an independent source of information as to the valid cross match.

This information is not compiled in any one place and warrants being referenced as a general tool for people who need to know this information. Miroj (talk) 23:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC) — Miroj (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

What part of Wikipedia is not a directory does not apply here? Corvus cornixtalk 00:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Where would you like them to look it up ? A russian website that is 5 years out of date. As they generally do. Non-franchise members of the industry do not have any support at all. Yet the information is a tabulation - a cross-match of wiki articles. And yes, people do come here to look up Distronic Parktronic
      • Not all information valued by internet users and mechanics is compiled well or easily found or current. Not all information is generic and simple. Some information is about the technology of modern systems. Given the shear volume of it then I can only tabulate it as it goes into the thousands of pages if explained individually.
        • Let me give you a scenario. I want to order a part. I'm told I can find that part on this list on Wikipedia. I look up the part and see the code listed here for, say, Cruise control, so I contact a Mercedes distributor and give them the part listed here. But the article has been vandalized, and so when I give the distributor the part number that I've asked for, it's really for another thing altogether, and the distributor charges me thousands of dollars more for a part I didn't want. Corvus cornixtalk 00:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yeah ok, but the system does not operate in that modality. Parktronic has about 43 parts. Each one is at least 10 digits but it generally belongs to the [220] family. Parts are not orderable with this information. It is a decoder for the build stamp on cars. Such as "what does my car have" as per its cryptic sticker - and yes even if it were vandalised there would be no reason to say that Wikipedia was liable. This raises other social issues and wiki-trust - which I don't want to ponder. You can not go to a dealer and order a [219] - he would look at you and wonder if you knew anything at all. Certainly they have a legal obligation to validate your concerns with a 10 or 14 digit number. These are "family" codes. Miroj (talk) 00:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How then would you know what Distronic on a Mercedes is called if you didnt know it was SA=219. Not everyone is interested in what happened to Bo and Hope. Some people would like technical information. Miroj (talk) 00:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You'll have to find some other place for this material, it doesn't belong here. Corvus cornixtalk 00:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know this place or are you being a tabloid purist. Miroj (talk) 00:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When someone tells me to get lost I like to ask for directions. I have a clear idea of what is popular and what is famous. At the end of the day Wikipedia need not serve the needs of the LCD. There are people who value information for their own useful purposes. This is far from entertaining but it is also far from useless. Miroj (talk) 00:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I should point out that in the official Mercedes Benz system there are also blank entries and information omitted. There is no single source which is pure and free from error. The EPCnet system is now free in the USA and EU. People should bear in mind that using a large and complex system is aided by the inclusion of ecclectic resources elsewhere. Miroj (talk) 00:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are hundreds if not thousands of proprietary part numbering systems around the world, from things like NATO-STANAG through ATA codes for the airline industry and down to specific part numbering systems for individuals manufacturers. The detailed list of none of those belong in a general encyclopedia. At most a top level description might be appropriate IF the coding system is sufficiently widely used - such as the ISBN system, or the Dewey decimal system. But in neither case would I expect an explicit listing of the code system; for that I need to consult an appropriate specialist manual. I don't want people trying to order parts to do maintenance on ANYTHING - be it a lawnmower or a Jumbo Jet - from Wikipedia! MadScot (talk) 01:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • The option codes are scattered all over the marketing material, price lists, imprinted on the cars and how people interpret them is not defined by excluding that information from Wikipedia. The system is used by millions of people every year. Thus far it has never caused anyone to be nominated for a Darwin Award. Thus it has proven itself inert in the last 100 years. Miroj (talk) 04:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia I thought, represented the sum total of human knowledge. Including those items which bind and collate loose information into a unified format. Thus giving rise to many-to-one and one-to-many mappings. There is nothing unusual about wanting to re-index information under a theme or tighter criteria. This generally saves a lot of time and represents the mindset of users / owners / groups which Wikipedia is intended to represent.

You could just as easily file articles loosely and dilute the capacity to derive a greater number of theme oriented ideas. How much deconstruction do you apply before you end up at Hawking radiation and Quark's.

The building of knowledge is also the building of collective and collated ideas. Otherwise we end up with, for example, 1000 articles on mathematical sub theory and no person can adequately denote which ideas are contradictory, opposing and unified.

Similarly, I was looking at the article for MOST (Automotive) and that was flagged as "nothing" - but it is the global standard for Automotive communication (telematics) for all European cars. The simple fact that someone doesnt know about it "back then" is meaningless. The contra-notion geist is alive and haunting in these journals. Ideas come from non-trivial fields and are being contested on the same level as what Brad Pitt did on his last vacation. I think that needs to be a detached one from the other and categorical value stands within its own niche. As a means of binding together hundreds of Mercedes articles, the option codes are entirely consistent with those existing pages. Miroj (talk) 02:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I also contest the directory argument as I have sourced several items via Wikipedia including [content management systems], [internet radio], [SQL server]. There were extensive and highly detailed lists of suppliers, sources, costs and formats. Not to mention brand names and their sites. Please clarify your comment. Miroj (talk) 02:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • What on earth makes you think that "hundreds of Mercedes articles" are going to be considered encyclopedic? What's notable about this option code system that means it rises above any other manufacturer's system? And the statement that WP is not a directory is not up for debate - it's codified at WP:NOTDIR on an official policy page, so there's no scope to challenge that. To be a justifiable subject for an encyclopedic article, the Mercedes option code system would have to have some unique feature, such that it was notable within its industry. Simply codifying car options doesn't seem to cross that bar. (And, btw, the MOSt article seems appropriately sized and does not delve into details such as this article does) MadScot (talk) 02:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are already hundreds of articles on Mercedes products in Wikipedia. Precisely how would you know they relate to a Mercedes if perhaps it wasnt obvious, which one and in what context ? Precisely how would you be able to find them all if perhaps you were not aware of the rather obscure naming conventions. Cross-listing for items within wikipedia is not unreasonable. I happen to know that BMW, Audi and VW followers have us much interest if not more in these topics but that information is not as easily available to them as there is an exclusion by the manufacturer from the method. For example, if you owned a Porsche ... you are more or less bound by their terms and conditions. That this information is available via Mercedes is a credit to them. I draw your attention to the fact that it is an enviable situation for Mercedes owners and those in the industry.

It is nothing more than a cross-listing of existing car related material in a more defined code system. If you want me to fragment all the codes into individual pages (as some dont exist) then sooner or later someone will want to index them all over again. It is just a convoluted self-referencing objection. Miroj (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 03:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]

    • Troublesome ? I really question your opinion as being anything other than provocative. Clearly I made a single line entry on the wrong page. A chat comment was placed in the wiki. You honestly take exception at your sigbot failing the Turing Test. Miroj (talk) 15:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. not only unencylopedic, but the "information" is not sourced, so any user would have to do their own fact checking, making the page useless. This would need sources for verifiability AND to show that such a list is notable. The lengthy replies here take time that would be better spent finding reliable sourcesYobmod (talk) 10:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The information is so common that it makes a communal soup bowl seem special. Please revert to a tried and tested method. Google MERCEDES RETROFIT. Why would something so obscure have hundreds of thousands of entries if people were not doing it. Then if you look at who is doing the work you may arrive at the same conclusion I have. Perhaps if the concepts being discussed were not at all part of Wikipedia then I would have to agree. The technology and the person function together. Outcomes = results. Hardly as important as "America's Next Top Model" but alas its all true. Miroj (talk) 15:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a child I had several reference libraries. I only ever wore out the ones that were readable as opposed to being popularly regarded as superior. Miroj (talk) 15:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply] 

Miroj (talk) 15:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • No problem. I have decided to take the database of information some other place. There is no need to clutter Wikipedia with common facts. It is more important that the L.C.D. is preserved. Miroj (talk) 23:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Your comments on this discussion are very enlightening. You have pretty much used half of the known logical fallacies in your responses, but have yet to respond to the reason people are saying this doesn't belong here. Please try again without resorting to childish insults as to why the article should remain when it clearly does not meet WP policies, which , since this is WP, is a bit more important than your personal attestation to the vitality of this information. Try WikiBooks.Try your own wiki. Hell, try Knol! But it doesn't belong here no matter how much you attack people simply telling you the way it is. -- Logical Premise Ergo? 04:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I know it doesnt belong here, I said that several days ago. I thought it interesting to talk on the topic but now I am just fascinated by the manner in which people deliver their comments. There are many things about Wikipedia which are illogical. Building a popular vote doesn't change that. Such as "attack" - I dont recall that an attack took place. I am quite aware that MuZemike comitted a fraudulent misrepresentation. Are you citing that as an attack ? Do you mind if I take some of your page code from your page ? It looks nice ! Miroj (talk) 07:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Eminem#Early life and first releases. Cirt (talk) 02:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Soul Intent

[edit]
Soul Intent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

There does not appear to be enough reliable source material available for this topic that is independent of Soul Intent. Fails Criteria for musicians and ensembles. -- Suntag ☼ 23:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect. According to WP:MUSIC, while membership of a notable musician is an argument for notability, redirects are often the most appropriate response to an early band of an artist who became famous. Unless more reliable sources are found, a redirect to Eminem seems like the best option, with any verified information about Soul Intent added to the section of that article which discusses his early career. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:55, 29 September 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 01:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fuck on the Beach

[edit]
Fuck on the Beach (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

There does not appear to be enough reliable source material available for this topic that is independent of Fuck on the Beach. Fails Criteria for musicians and ensembles. -- Suntag ☼ 23:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Doesn't the fact that there's a live CD of their US concert prove that there's been a US concert? Or am I being naive now?    SIS  12:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you referring to criterion 4: "Has received non-trivial coverage in a reliable source of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour"? This is not the same as "has undertaken a national tour". Where is the reliable, non-trivial coverage about the tour? Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say a CD release of it is reliable, non-trivial coverage. But maybe that's just my incorrect interpretation.    SIS  12:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fender Discussion Page

[edit]
Fender Discussion Page (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

In my view the somewhat promotional tone and content of this article is not truly appropriate for an encyclopedia, though of course that could be easily fixed with some pruning and editing. The main point is whether this privately-owned, paid website is notable enough for inclusion here. I myself can't find enough non-trivial independent sources about the website to convince me of that it meets the WP:WEB criteria for notability. Google news gives 6 hits [1], of a trivial nature, googlebooks and googlescholar none at all. What do others think? Slp1 (talk) 22:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While the site is fairly self-contained, it has existed for many years and has become psuedo-non-profit, as members gratefully receive advice and donate beyond what's required. While Greene doesn't publish his financials, he's stated in the past that his primary goal (and, in fact, personal rule) is simply not to spend any of his own money on it. So, while it's "for profit," I don't think it's lucrative, if that matters. The site has tens of thousands of registered users and hundreds or thousands of real regulars. See the main Talk page for some statistics re. the site's relative noteworthiness. Jeff Muscato (talk) 23:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Their income is derived from two sources: advertising revenues from our sponsors and member contributions. These funds are deposited in the FDP checking account and are reported as income on their tax return. They also report expenses for all the costs related to running the site. What net amount remains is taxable income and what remains after that, is net profit. They are NOT a non-profit organisation. And so should not have a free advert on Wiki. Signed Damien Cahill.

Just so you know, being a for profit web forum is not a problem as far as wikipedia is concerned. After all, we have articles about Google and Yahoo. Unlike Google and Yahoo, however, FDP doesn`t seem to be notable: there are very few mentions of it in the media and other reliable sources. --Slp1 (talk) 16:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HiLexed

[edit]
HiLexed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable software and how-to guide. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 22:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus to delete. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 08:41, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Project Serpo

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Project Serpo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This conspiracy theory has received no independent, third-party attention. It fails our notability criteria outlined on WP:FRINGE. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Looks like it was discussed in a series of articles in UFO magazine, which appears to be a fairly professional looking publication (its website refers to 'newsstand distribution' which would seem to imply more than a one man band type of rag). Looks like they had an issue with four articles devoted to the theory, which seems to be more than trivial coverage. MadScot (talk) 00:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment It is hard to believe that UFO magazine could be described as a reliable source in the sense that it carries out fact-checking, any more than Mad Magazine is a reliable source.--Grahame (talk) 01:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment But realistically, how can you have a "reliable source" for a fringe theory? Almost by definition, if it's off-the-wall it's going to be somewhat unreliable in nature. WP:FRINGE states "A fringe theory can be considered notable if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication" and I note it doesn't ask that the major publication meet WP:RS. I'll happily be corrected if someone digs out policy or precedent, but it seems that we're explicitly allowing sources of less-than-normal reliability, provided they are independent of the theory's creator and so on. MadScot (talk) 01:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia articles must simultaneusly satisfy ALL policies and guidelines. If a publication that we source a WP:FRINGE claim to is not WP:RS then we have a problem with WP:RS. And it is possible t have reliable sources which discuss fringe theories. Check out Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories for some examples. ScienceApologist (talk) 11:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But what is a RS in this sense? "fact checking" seems an awfully high bar - I mean, outside the 'believers' no-one thinks the facts exist. Unless you mean things like confirming that the theory exists, not its factuality. And unless a fringe magazine is writing articles about things IT ITSELF MAKES UP (down which road insanity lies IMO) then they probably are crossing that lower bar for an RS. I was considering the fact checking comment perhaps too tightly - what fact should an RS be checking in such a case?MadScot (talk) 11:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is a point about third-party independent source acknowledging the existence of an idea. That is the single standard I'm using for what would constitute a reliable source. From what I have seen, such a source does not exist. There are a bunch of conspiracy theorist websites trumpeting about the existence of this project, but unless we can find a person who isn't wrapped up in promoting the idea, we have no way of judging the level of notability this idea has: nor do we have any chance of writing a neutral article on the subject without such reliable sources. Contrast that with the Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories upon which there are loads of independent sources writing. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That sounds like what you're saying is that we need a counter-article (the 'serious' coverage of the Kennedy theories being by people seeking to debunk them, no?) Any coverage by a source sympathetic to a fringe theory is always going to be ropier than a mainstream source countering the theory. Is that about right? MadScot (talk) 15:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless there is some relatively RS source that discusses the actual existence of this group. Less than norma reliability, sure, but at this point there's nothing at all to show they actually have been noticed by anyone besides themselves. DGG (talk) 04:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously ridiculous nonsense, however I am moved by Madscot and Graham's argument, as long as it contains sufficient independent coverage, which at a glance it does seem to (g-hits too), then it is worth keeping in some form. Rewrite and notability tags perhaps?JJJ999 (talk) 07:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Independent? Please, show me. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[3] is a comment by a reader on a blog. The other three are hosted on different websites, but are all by the same author, and are newsblog postings. — BillC talk 07:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Area 51: The Alien Interview

[edit]
Area 51: The Alien Interview (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Does not pass WP:NF. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Batson and the Legend of Shazam

[edit]
Billy Batson and the Legend of Shazam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A real movie (Google turns up results), but it doesn't assert notability. KJS77 Join the Revolution 22:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to The Skids. Cirt (talk) 02:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Simpson (estate agent)

[edit]
Bill Simpson (estate agent) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

PROD contested without explanation. Although the subject has been a member of a notable band (and a particularly fine band, too), that is all he is notable for. Per WP:BIO1E there is no individual notability. Redirect to The Skids. Ros0709 (talk) 22:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to Mortal Engines Quartet.  Sandstein  09:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orbital Defence Initiative

[edit]
Orbital Defence Initiative (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This element of fiction does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 22:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ffm 22:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marcos Brown-Garcia

[edit]
Marcos Brown-Garcia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Subject does not appear notable enough for an article, but since there is at least some claim of notability, I was not comfortable doing a speedy deletion. Aleta Sing 21:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment strike that keep vote. Born 1983, ends career at 19, implies 2002. Yet Scarborough were a Conference side in 2002 - last Div 3 season seems to be 98-99. He'd have been 16 then. Seems a bit young, also I can't find any 3-2 wins by Scarborough over Chester City. MadScot (talk) 22:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment searching http://www.scarboroughfc.com I can't find any evidence he ever played for them. They have match reports from 2002-03 season - which if he was playing for them when he was 19, he should be in. Anyone scoring a hattrick in the fashion mentioned OUGHT to make a splash in a match report, or at least be listed as a goal scorer. Yet, nothing. Getting a sinking feeling about this... MadScot (talk) 23:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Following text was in an edit by User:FA Players Past and present who I believe inadvertently overwrote the AfD. I have taken the liberty of rverting the edits and now insert his text following: MadScot (talk) 08:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Garcia scored the hatrick in 1999 and there are no reports from 1999..... My research has been sourced from old newspaper clippings and from ex managers who managed the players I am researching..... I also made phonecalls to clubs..... If you are realistic there is not much research on youth players hence the lack of articles. A player who played 6 years ago will not be written about, you have to be realistic..... That is the reason I am writing about such players, my goal is to highlight players who have slipped through the net in English football. Im sick of reading about the Gerrards, Lampards, Robinhos, the money men. I thought it would be interested to offer a different perspective on foothball and offer articles on players who are actually interesting to read about.....

plus please be aware this was a youth player who never actually took off....how much stuff do you see on the internet about these such players?? nothing, thats why there are no references at present. Youth players do not get written about.....I have some articles mentioning his name. I just want to give the playes who didnt make it for what ever reason some coverage as some of them actually have interesting stories. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FA Players Past and Present (talk • contribs) 08:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment Those are laudable goals, can you at least provide some of that info as references. Right now the article doesn't say which seasons he played for a professional team (even Division 3). If you add the info and indicate the sources - and I believe references to print sources are acceptable since they are verifiable if someone goes to the source - then the article starts to look more keepable I think. MadScot (talk) 08:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - yes, print sources are fine. FA Players, please read WP:RS if you haven't. If sources are not added, I can say with a fair degree of confidence that the article will be deleted. If verifiable, reliable sources are added that show his notability, however, then the article almost certainly will stay. Aleta Sing 17:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- I am pasting in the following comment from FA Players, who deleted the rest of the AFD when writing it: "I have deleted part about the goals so is that article now ok as my reference was a evening newspaper?? Also how do I insert and reference and how do I put speaking to a manager as a reference." Aleta Sing 18:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • FAPlayers, please do not delete others' comments when making your own. take a look at WP:Cite for creating citations. In the mean time, go ahead and add your references at least parenthetically. Worry less about the formatting (Wikifairies/wikignomes will fix formatting issues for you) than just getting the reference information in the article. Feel free to send me a message on my talk page for more help with that. Aleta Sing 18:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment FA player, please don't delete the hat-trick info if you have a source for it - even an evening paper is good enough, because if anyone wanted to confirm it officially I'm sure the Football league will have records anyway, and it's a pretty NOTABLE feat on what seems to have been his first game for the club, and possibly first pro appearance (?). Just list what the source was (Scarborough Eveing Post or whatever) and we can sort out the details later. The key is to at least list what the references were that you used; as Aleta says, the finer points can be fixed at leisure, right now the important thing is that you do have references, so list them! MadScot (talk) 19:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added some more references, I hope this helps....I would like a decision on the article please as I am wanting to write some more. I have researched my others more throughly so have more sources. Garcia was my most interesting subject so went on personal knowledge rather than research. I will continue to add reeferences as I come accross them. Right now though I am involved in my other projects so are my new references enough? —Preceding unsigned comment added by FA Players Past and Present (talk • contribs) 08:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete As not notable. Could have become, but didn't, like many don't. Interesting story, but interesting doesn't make encyclopaedic.--ClubOranjeTalk 00:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment FA Players P&P, I can appreciate the effort and research that has gone into this. However, WP is an encyclopedia, and as such Brown-Garcia does not qualify for inclusion under current criteria. The reason there is not much written about youth and reserve players is that they don't have the same notability that senior professional players have. May I suggest you continue your research on such players and compile and publish. A book on players that didn't quite get there could make interesting reading for some--ClubOranjeTalk 00:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its one entry....at least let me have that for my efforts.....Please dont let my effort go to waste..Let me have one thing to show for it.....One entry out of nearly 3 million. What harm is that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FA Players Past and Present (talk • contribs) 08:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Falkner-eggington courts

[edit]
Falkner-eggington courts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No more notable now than it was a year ago, when it was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Falkner Eggington Courts (2nd nomination), nor when it was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Falkner Eggington Courts. It looks like it raises its head every year and gets it cut off. Corvus cornixtalk 21:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is somewhat different from the deleted article so I don't think CSD G4 will come into play here. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I listed it here instead of as a speedy. The previous version is available at Nationmaster. Corvus cornixtalk 22:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bhangra in the Burgh

[edit]
Bhangra in the Burgh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article on local fund-raising event, indistinguishable from an advert. Only local sources, at best. CalendarWatcher (talk) 21:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - There is the one Post Gazette article referenced in the article. The other articles from university papers and whatnot are not really reliable sources for establishing notability. Not enough coverage to clear the notability bar for me. -- Whpq (talk) 16:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 02:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MC J and Cool G

[edit]
MC J and Cool G (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unsourced article with unsupported minor claim to notability (first black act on Capitol in Canada - if you believe it, and if something so specific is actually notable, since it's only one label in one market). Guy (Help!) 20:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete, while being nominated for Juno allows them to pass WP:MUSIC#C8, the huge lack of results when searching for WP:RS to back it up doesn't. Keep, enough WP:RS for them to pass WP:MUSIC#C8. Also I agree that it should be moved to "MCJ & Cool G" if it survives this AfD.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 04:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - the article is very new (days old) and is missing references (I've tagged it with {{unref}}). However, they meet criteria #8 of WP:MUSIC having been nominated for four Juno Awards (not 3 as claimed in the article). Using the Juno Archive, a search for artist "MCJ & Cool G" shows nominations for "1994 - Best R&B/Soul Recording", "1991 - Best R&B/Soul Recording", "1991 - Rap Recording of the Year", and "1991 - Single of the Year". -- Whpq (talk) 16:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here is some more info which would support notability Canadian Encyclopedia entry on Rap, and their entry in the Canadian Pop Encyclopedia. I suspect coverage is in offline sources as a group with 4 Juno nominations would get some form of coverage for their work. -- Whpq (talk) 16:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have now revamped the article by adding the references I found above, and some additional ones into the article, as well as applying some copyeditting and expansion. I believe it now meets WP:MUSIC with WP:RS and WP:V fulfilled as well. -- Whpq (talk) 21:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

1800s

[edit]

The result was keep (per WP:SNOW) Kotniski (talk) 10:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1800s (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Only page about a century on Wikipedia that is titled as such. Georgia guy (talk) 20:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because the 1800s refers not only to the decade, but the century. This pages is a disambig between the two. The alternate is 1800s (decade). Grsztalk 21:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But when was there a consensus not to have the decade page at 1800s?? Georgia guy (talk) 21:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think a few days ago, at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(numbers_and_dates)#Decades. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - seems to me that this is more of a content dispute. Amiright? Jauerbackdude?/dude. 21:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this is work in progress. Certainly there needs to be something at 1800s, and it certainly shouldn't be a decade like it was (Wikipedia doesn't reinvent the English language), but exactly what form this will take will be arrived at by consensus. Other pages (1700s etc.) will then follow the same format.--Kotniski (talk) 09:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kerri Hoskins

[edit]
Kerri Hoskins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not notable; article is mostly a list of links. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 20:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Becky Gable

[edit]
Becky Gable (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not notable -- Gmatsuda (talk) 20:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Broadford, County Limerick

[edit]
Broadford, County Limerick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is a series of vandalisms without any single useful revision. A summary regarding the history of this article is given here. I suggest to delete this article to get rid of the embarassing history and to start from scratch. --AFBorchert (talk) 20:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This version is not free from vandalism. The population number is fantasy as the village landmarks which includes our lady of the snows church built in 1856 and Carnige library built in 1917. Please get rid of this article. The long continued history of vandalisms would be a burden otherwise. In addition, at least some of the revisions would need to be deleted as they include deflamatory remarks against named persons. --AFBorchert (talk) 20:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Based on your comments I have removed all of the article's content except for the initial line (is that one accurate?) as I couldn't find any sources with which to verify the information, do you know of any reliable sources which could be used to flesh out an accurate expanded article? Guest9999 (talk) 13:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I do not find much about Broadford. When I saw the article for the first time, I suspected that the village could even be a fake as I didn't found it in my reference books. But I found it on the map :) Among all the vandalisms was a note telling that Broadford wasn't even marked in the very early OS maps. This sounds as if Broadford could be a late foundation. The only infos I can contribute is the population of 892 (census 2006, see here), the confirmation of its geographical location, and its Irish name Béal an Átha (see Discovery Series 72, ISBN 0-904996-87-5). According to the map, the village is stretched along the R515, located 4 km west of Dromcolliher at the junction with the R579. There is a school, a church, and a post office. In addition I have just found some additional infos at the parish web page (see here):
Broadford is a relatively new village and was first recorded in the maps of 1837. The area grew as the village of Broadford began to prosper in the first half of the nineteenth century. The village is eight miles from the town of Newcastle West and is the meeting point of the R515 from the west and the R579 from the south.
Some infos about the church in Broadford are to be found here. --AFBorchert (talk) 18:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Surely that village is notable. I just suggest a start from scratch by getting rid of this history where this article started as the village of Broadford on the island of Skye, got transfigurated into the equally named village in County Limerick and was continously vandalized since then without any useful content which ought to be preserved. Given the work of Guest9999 to turn this into a survivable article, I would suggest to clean the history which also names people (apparently from Broadford) and attaches some name calling remarks to them. We do not need to preserve this. --AFBorchert (talk) 18:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for finding a reference regarding the Carnegie Library. I didn't knew that such small villages would also get a Carnegie Library and I suspected it to be fantasy like the other "facts" added to the article. And a population number that results from this edit is not exactly trustworthy, in particular if you look at the subsequent edit from the very same IP. Folks, I went through the entire revision history of this article, edit by edit, and found as good as nothing which appeared trustworthy to me, not to mention reliable. It is simply the sad story of a neglected article which was on nobodies watchlist but under constant attacks from vandalizing IPs. And all good faith edits were apparently restricted to fatal mistakes (e.g. hijacking the town of the isle of Skye) or minor edits like fixing typos that ignored entirely the vandalized contents. --AFBorchert (talk) 20:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just added a bunch of detail + a reference and tidied up a bit. Feel free to have a go :) - Alison ❤ 22:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, clean up and monitor. If we were to delete articles because they were frequent targets of vandals, just about every major city in the world would have its article deleted. --Oakshade (talk) 01:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You honestly mean revisions like this one or that one are to be preserved? Please consider our deletion policy where vandalism is named as a reason for deletion and in particular this policy which encourages to delete such articles even if they are notable. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but that is so not an "attack page". No way, and take it from someone who deals with attack pages all the time. There is far worse than that, and there are so many articles that have simple vandalism like that in their histories. There's also the matter of the GFDL, where it would be unacceptable to delete an entire valid, encyclopedic page on account of a handful of edits and, say, restoring the last revision. That would mean that the original authors would not be attributed and that would be a big problem - Alison ❤ 06:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please show me a single edit before my deletion request that is worth to be kept and needs to be attributed --AFBorchert (talk) 07:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Or let me make an offer: If this article gets deleted, I will write a replacement from scratch which is superior to anything seen before in that article within a few days. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but it doesn't work that way. I've contributed to it now, as have others and deleting it to create again would just deny them their rightful accreditation. We don't delete simple vandalism from articles, we revert it. It specifically states that in the deletion policy you quote above. The best option is to start editing now (as I have) and make it into an article we can be proud of. What's gone is gone - Alison ❤ 07:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See also, Wikipedia:Vandalism#How not to respond to vandalism; "Do not nominate an article for deletion because it is being vandalized. That's like throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and simply encourages vandalism further." - Alison ❤ 03:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried to make clear that this is more than a case of simple vandalism, it is a long series of defamations which prolonged over multiple years. This policy asks for such material to be deleted (and not simply reverted) for very good reasons as otherwise the Wikipedia takes responsibility for hosting this libel. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Third time; if there are 'defamations' in the article history (and I can't see them), point them out and I'll oversight them myself, providing they're within policy - Alison ❤ 06:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is the list: [6] (this was afterwards just marked with a {{Dubious}} template but kept for over a year), [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23]. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Manshoon

[edit]
Manshoon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The page has significant problems including no third-party sources, no real world information and an in-universe perspective. It has been sitting idle for months with no improvement and I have not been able to find any reliable sources covering the topic on which a renewed article could be based. With this in mind, unless new sources can be found I do not think the article can establish the real world perspective as outlined in Wikipedia's guideline on writing about fiction or be dealt with "in an encyclop[a]edic manner; discussing the reception, impact and significance". Guest9999 (talk) 20:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barbie as the Sleeping Beauty

[edit]
Barbie as the Sleeping Beauty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I can't find any reliable sources that say what the status of this film is. This was previously deleted as a hoax. If it's not a hoax, it doesn't pass WP:NFF. Schuym1 (talk) 19:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

... and now it does.Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 14:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Group for Spanish Football Statistics Compilation

[edit]

.

Group for Spanish Football Statistics Compilation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No indication of notability, unsourced, appears to be partly a translation and partly original research. Tan | 39 19:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grace Period (Unix)

[edit]
Grace Period (Unix) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

One-sentence article. Orphaned. No sources. No content. Message from XENUu, t 19:18, 29 September 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 and userfy to User:MadScot/Achnaluachrach, Sutherland.  Sandstein  10:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Achnaluachrach, Sutherland

[edit]
Achnaluachrach, Sutherland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete. Fails notability Ben MacDui 18:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • We can get a fairly good idea of what's here from Geograph. A farm? An abandoned, or nearly so, settlement is one thing, but a lone farm is something else. Delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a town is notable, but a settlement with no buildings and looks like farmland is not notable. Pie is good (Apple is the best) 20:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've found one reference to "a family living around" Achnaluachrach in the 1841 census (haven't found the actual census data yet) which would tend to suggest this may have been rather more than just a farm at one point. The fact that it has a settlement-like name, rather than just a farm name, is suggestive of rather more settlement at one time. Is settlement notability perpetual, or must it be maintained to the present to be considered adequate? MadScot (talk) 20:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If notability is permanent, any past settlement is notable, as long as we can confirm that it really existed. And notability isn't temporary. Nyttend (talk) 22:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • More info this site contains what it says (and I trust) are transcribed versions of various historical records. The 1809 Rogart Parish Militia List has 5 male residents of the place - a James Douglas (tenant), George Mackay (tenant), John Murray (tenant), Peter Murray )labourer) and Henry Sutherland (tenant). With the exception of the two Murrays, this appears to indicate four family units (I doubt any single males would be tenants, they'd more likely be labourers, you couldn't work a tenant farm alone). The 1812 Statuite Labour List appears to spell the place "Achinluachrach" (also being translated as "rushy field" so I'm pretty sure its a transliteration issue from the Gaelic) and as such we get a James Douglas and George Mackay which fits. Also we get Alex, Colin, John and Peter Murray and Henry Sutherland again. The 1824 Militia List again uses the article spelling, now with John Mackay (tailor) and John Sutherland (labourer). There's a lot of emigration in the 1830s, so it looks like there was a degree of depopulation then. The list of emigrants doesn't give matching origins, but there are some common names who may be some of the former residents. Looks to me like this was a small village of perhaps 4 or 5 tenant farms in the early 19th century, but emigration reduced the place shortly thereafter. Certainly it was more than just a farm back then. If notability doesn't disappear, then it's a keep I guess. And a saddening one, given my heritage. MadScot (talk) 03:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment The question is not size or current existence but notability. Skara Brae is a deserted village but its notability is not in question. The above is interesting research, but the fact the five, ten or a hundred people once lived there isn't a reason for an article. Ben MacDui 08:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Question: wouldn't a parish militia have listed ALL male residents, as possible recruits? Hence is there any way to know if this was one farm with one owner and 4 live-in farm hands?Yobmod (talk) 11:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the above information still does not demonstrate notability. Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 09:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment there does seem to be a fair bit of precedent that settlements, even abandoned ones, are notable. While there doesn't seem to be an agreed policy (as far as I can tell WP:NGL is under discussion) if we are keeping abandoned villages in Azerbaijan as in this case then this seems similar. I don't like using something close to WP:OSE, but in the absence of agreed policy precedent at AfD is all we have. MadScot (talk) 09:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The azerbaijan village really exists and has real people living there, presumable a wealth of data about exists, but unfortunately there are no wikipedians with access to it. It is not comparable to this case.
  • comment Thats not how I read the AfD. It appears the village "disappeared between 1961 and 1977" according to an editor who found a print source. Additionally, the close statement says "We now agree that the fact that there once was an inhabited village of that name is verifiable," so although the article is written in present tense I'm not convinced it currently exists. Even if it still does exist, the keep wasn't on the basis of current existence, IMO. Its a shame there's no agreed policy on settlement notability. MadScot (talk) 11:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I wouldn't consider 5 (confirmed) people living over a large area to be a settlement. More people fit in one tent, which would make every square foot of Europe a settlment of some sort. Permanent camping sites don't get articles either, even if 100 people live there. What is the use of this article if no other information can be found? It would remain a one line stub of no interest to anyone. No information = non-notable by definition.Yobmod (talk) 11:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Why do you conclude "a large area". And we have 5+ males identified, which means a larger full population (assuming most were a head of household). And while a hamlet sized grouping inside a major city is just an apartment building and non-notable, that same number of people as the only habitation for miles is a bit more significant, no? MadScot (talk) 11:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as I'm not convinced by what I see that this was really a settlement; as Yobmod said, it might be a family with four hired hands, or a family with an older son and three hired hands. Anyway, it's not the only settlement for miles — look at the Google map linked at the top of this discussion, and you'll see that there's a West Langwell only a fraction of a mile to the southeast. Nyttend (talk) 04:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good point; I'd overlooked that. I'm still inclined toward delete, as I'd like to see some other source than simply lists of names and their occupations — especially as I can't access the lists. Do I have to have a subscription to the website to view the lists, or did I simply not find them when I went looking a little while ago? Perhaps Two Mile Prairie, Missouri would be a better analogy for this case than Əngəlan? The difference between 2MP and Ach... is that we've got multiple sources for 2MP that explain what it is/was (for example, see the U.S. Geological Survey Geographic Names Information System: GNIS entry) as well as other sources, but here I don't see anything that says explicitly that it is/was a settlement. Nyttend (talk) 20:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, no subscription. They're in one of the sidebars. I'll try to see if there's a direct link. As to other mentions, I agree, it'd be nice. But I suspect they'd again be in paper records, so it'll be a struggle to track them down, especially in the context of the AfD timescale. MadScot (talk) 21:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, here we go:
1809 Rogart Militia List
1812 Parish of Rogart - Statute Labour List
1824 Rogart Militia List - last two include National Archives of Scotland reference #
MadScot (talk) 21:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ordnance Survey Looks like it does exist in the Ordnance Survey database of British Places. Go to the OS website and enter "Achnaluachrach" as a placename search and it identifies this location. That's equivalent to the US equivalent GNIS database, no? MadScot (talk) 21:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is the link to the results page - the site's a bit finicky: Achnaluachrach MadScot (talk) 21:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, unfortunately this database is responsible for numerous deletion discussions. In this regard it is an extremely unreliable source. For those that still exist see for example Hilton, Orkney (a farm) Achnahanaid etc. etc. It would be very helpful if editors would attempt to confirm notability rather than just creating stubs from this lazy databse that just picks names off a map. Ben MacDui 07:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The difference from the GNIS is that this doesn't specify what the place is: you can see, for example, that U.S. Geological Survey Geographic Names Information System: Porterville, Texas was a "Populated Place", but I don't see anything at all on the OS page that you've given (thanks for direct links; I couldn't get there from the main OS website for some reason) to say that Ach... is/was a community. Nyttend (talk) 13:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Request Without prejudging the outcome of the AfD, can I request that if the result is 'delete' that the page be userfied to me? While I have no real connection to the place, I'm intrigued to see if there's more info to be dug out. As possibly an example of a small highland village reduced to a single farm as a consequence of 'clearance' by the estate, I'd like to see if more could be found. I think if such can be established (and there are records showing that the Sutherland estate paid passage for a number of families in the right time frame) then as part of a significant historical event in the Highlands maybe that would be a justification for resurrection. MadScot (talk) 16:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Without a doubt, your request is (1) reasonable, and (2) no reason for anyone to prejudge the outcome. Forgive me if you already know this, but articles deleted at AFD may be reposted if they are expanded or otherwise fixed to resolve the issues that led to their being deleted, so your idea is quite fine. Nyttend (talk) 01:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  10:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Clarke (lecturer)

[edit]
David Clarke (lecturer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This person fails WP:PROF. He has not received third-party mainstream independent coverage enough to establish his notability. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought from his listed publications. However, I have not researched these and just accepted the article on face value. In view of comments below I withdraw my support. --Dreamspy (talk) 16:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was no consensus, default to keep.  Sandstein  10:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

British UFO Research Association

[edit]
British UFO Research Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:ORG. No third-party, mainstream outside sources recognize it as notable. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep They pop up in the news quite a bit as one of the leading British Ufological organisations , especially given the current UK UFO flap (granted the vast majority are fire lanterns but that doesn't detract from their being the people who are turned to for an opinion). See for example [25]. I'm not sure how you'd insert such things into an article (or if you should) but it does demonstrate their status. (Emperor (talk) 18:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete members have certainly been quoted in several reasonably reputable publications including The Times[26], The Telegraph[27] and The Daily Mail[28]. However I can't find anything about the actual organisation itself organisation itself from any reliable sources (except for on their website) and I don't think there's anything upon which an article could realistically be based. The article referenced above from the Louth Leader does give one descriptive sentence about the group but not knowing anything about the publication and basing my opinion on the style and tone I do not know if it would be regarded as a reliable source (with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy) or as a local newspaper which typically aren't. Guest9999 (talk) 20:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep That few sources have so far been found/used to fully demonstrate BUFORAs notability should not suggest that they aren't there. It can, perhaps, drift into being an unprovable point that a certain person, place or thing is "notable" since every definition is different. But, as Emperor notes, BUFORA is a (the) notable British UFO organisation, and absolutely ought to have a page. Stick notes about "improving sourcing" and the like on the page, but don't delete it out of hand. ntnon (talk) 21:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment not notable enough for an independent article in my humble opinion [29] , and the article says they're mainly based on the internet now. Having said that, there's a whole category of these groups, most of which I doubt are technically notable per numerous or in depth mentions in WP:RS- [30]. Sticky Parkin 00:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Major organisation in its field, as shown by the demonstration of the extent to which they are quoted. it's not the best of criteria, but in this instance the notability seems sufficiently shown. DGG (talk) 05:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry for my possibly careless reading, but how has it been shown that they are extensively quoted [in reputable sources]? Bongomatic (talk) 06:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Surely if members of an organisation are quoted because of their association with that organisation, that's (de facto) the organisation being quoted, ergo... [That would be my understanding/interpretation of Guest9999's - anti! - point.] ntnon (talk) 20:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    How is it demonstrated that they were quoted because of their association with the organization, not their interest in the field. If there were a particle physicist quoted on a particle physics topic, and he were a member of Association of Nude-Skydiving Particle-Physicists, would that be evidence for the notability of that group (not that there wouldn't be plenty of other evidence for that proposition!)? Bongomatic (talk) 01:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Association and interest are hand-in-hand, though. And your analogy - while amusing! - is clearly flawed: if Particle Physicist A - who worked on the large hadron collider - is quoted on large hadron colliders, we can rationally assume that PPA was chosen over PPB because of that association. Similarly, there are all manner of parties interested in UFOs, but that one affiliated with BUFORA is chosen to be quoted (and this is either known, or more tellingly noted), then the link is palpably clear. ntnon (talk) 00:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I have nothing against WP articles about UFOs or UFO organizations--but they should be cited notable UFOs and UFO organizations. Bongomatic (talk) 01:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Its a good article, does not deserve to be deleted. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 13:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of locations in Jak and Daxter

[edit]
List of locations in Jak and Daxter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a completely unnecessary list of minor plot points and in-game levels that have no context outside of the plot of the series. Anything important to the overall plot should be covered within its relevant game, while the rest does not deserve any mention. TTN (talk) 18:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am also nominating the following page because it is just an unnecessary list of locations and plot summary:
Haven City (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

DeleteWP:N, WP:FICT, gameguide, WP:V, WP:OR. etc, kthnx. bridies (talk) 19:17, 29 September 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. Cirt (talk) 02:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Antiochian Catholic Church in America

[edit]
Antiochian Catholic Church in America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

does not meet notability standards Jbuchman (talk) 18:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as first paragraph or so is a copyvio of [31], while having nothing related to it on Google News and Google. Pie is good (Apple is the best) 20:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Copy on source linked in entry above is from Wikipedia, not vice-versa (I am the author of said copy, and I know, therefore, that it first appeared here). Second, when I Google "Antiochian Catholic Church in America" I get over 900 hits. Third, see link at bottom of article. The Church has been written about several times in Knoxville, Tennessee's major newspaper. Fourth, this article has been here for over three years. How is it that its subject now becomes non-notable? Fifth, In the interests of full disclosure, while I acknowledge that I am connected with this Church; it should also be noted that Mr. Buchman was once as well, but has now left the Church and become a critic for personal reasons which are not relevant here. Sixth, while there are many Independent Catholic/Orthodox Churches, all of which are quite small, the ACCA is unique, AFAICT, in embracing the theology that it does, and in the way it worships, according to the Syriac Rite. Further, it is fairly unique in that it is a traditional Church which ordains women. Seventh, the Church has had an entry in the standard reference work, the Encyclopedia of American Religions, since the Church became an independent jurisdiction back in 1991. --Midnite Critic (talk) 01:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Have personally visited all of the ACCA communities, and am aware of their work in their communities, as well as the unique nature of their jurisdiction. Cautiouswader (talk) 12:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 14:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep"""The mere fact that they chose to be Indepent Catholic makes them signifiant and notable.Swimmer1207 (talk) 22:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not so fast...Delete If it's a keeper, it needs better sources. I see only one WP:RS linked in the article, and that's to an opinion page that simply mentions one ministry of one congregation. I do not see WP:ORG met with what's present in the article. If my church has 15 people, can I declare it an independent Catholic church and get my own Wikipedia article, when the individual congregation would be unquestionably non-notable? Jclemens (talk) 02:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Further, per this search I only see one mention outside what's been referenced in the Knoxville News Sentinel. However, each of the five KNS references known to Google news are from one (apparently guest) columnist. My initial suspicion is that he's associated with the church, making him non-independent. Jclemens (talk) 02:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Not notable. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Reply to the above: If this article is deleted, then logic would dictate that many of the other articles in the "Independent Catholic Churches" category should go as well. Many of these articles seem to be based solely upon entries from the above-mentioned Encyclopedia of American Religions, a standard reference work found in virtually every library in the United States (it has its own Wikipedia article, linked in the ACCA article, as does its editor, J. Gordon Melton), and which has an entry for the Antiochian Catholic Church in America; however no one is questioning the notability of the subjects of these articles, even though the ACCA is comparable in size (and "notability") to these other Churches. So why kill this article, at this time, and not the others? To answer Jclemens' question: no. Some sort of independent Protestant congregation? Certainly. But one of the pillars of Independent Catholicism is the claim to valid Holy Orders. This implies a direct historical connection via episcopal ordination (ordination of its bishops) back to Rome and/or one of the Orthodox patriarchates that is simply not present when one or more people get together to form an independent congregation outside of this movement. --Midnite Critic (talk) 04:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment That would be an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. Jclemens (talk) 15:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Reply to above comment: The first part is, I suppose, but we're not talking about sitcom characters here. We're talking about a Church that is part of a more general phenomenon that, while admittedly existing on the fringes, has anticipated the addressing of questions which have more recently begun to be issues in more mainstream Churches. For example, certain Independent Catholic Churches were the first, among Churches claiming the Apostolic Succession of their bishops, to ordain women. --Midnite Critic (talk) 03:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's generally accepted that subjects covered in paper enyclopedias should be covered by Wikipedia. I've also added another source. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with respect to small religious sects that do not have significant presence on the internet, we need to be very liberal about accepting sources for notability. The presence in the encyclopedia is significant enough here. We are not able to judge doctrinal claims for distinctness or importance, though. DGG (talk) 14:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dropa

[edit]
Dropa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Von Daniken fringe theory that has received absolutely ZERO independent third-party notice. Any meaningful content can be merged with Erich von Däniken. However, I can't find anything in the article worth keeping. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Parker

[edit]
Ron Parker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable Natural Law Party Candidate. Fails WP:BIO. No sources seem forthcoming. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:09, 29 September 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. Cirt (talk) 02:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Venusians

[edit]
Venusians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Essentially a original researched synthesis of all the claims people have made for inhabitants of the planet Venus. This is not a legitimate subject for a Wikipedia article. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - it's not original research since it does not "present a conclusion by putting together different sources". It's an outline of where the concept of Venusians has been used in film and literature. ... discospinster talk 18:50, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If that's true, then the entire article violates WP:TRIVIA. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jenny Randles

[edit]
Jenny Randles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This person is not notable, simply has not risen to the level of notability we require for biographies. No third-party, independent reliable sources can be used to verify any of the information in this article. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/British UFO Research Association ScienceApologist (talk) 18:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Its a good article, it is notable within the industry involving UFOs. It is well referenced too, I want to keep it. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 18:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a UFO industry? No wonder people keep seeing these things: they're being pumped out by an industry! Seriously, though, we need notability outside of the fringe field if we are going to keep the article. See the guideline I linked to for more. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also it is nearly notable as an article can come becuase she was formerly a high ranking employee of British UFO Research Association, which has its own page. I really dont think this is the article to delete. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 18:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point to the section of WP:BIO which says a "high ranking employee of a UFO research association" is notable? In any case, thanks for pointing out another article of dubious notability. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please dont be smart, when I say industry I mean the people and places affiliated with UFOs and the like. Also she is former director of investigations, which obviously is quite a high rank. This is referenced as well, [34]. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 13:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, do I have to point out where it says it in BIO? No of course I dont, anyone with half a brain working can understand that someone who is head of an organisation which is obviously notable due to it having its own article, is notable. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 13:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, she is notable for the fact of her being an author, look at the amount of books that she has published, that counts alone. Books Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 13:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]
List of alleged UFO-related vehicles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

WTF? Can you even figure out what this article is supposed to be about? Ostensibly it's about "vehicles", but is a Green Fireball a vehicle? Should Ford pickup, Chevy pickup, and Dodge Ram be listed since many UFO sightings happen from those vehicles? I think this actually may be a case of WP:BJAODN. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ufologists

[edit]
List of Ufologists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Since there is no standard qualification for what makes a ufologist, it is irresponsible and impossible for Wikipedia to construct a "list" of them. What would constitute a reliable source for what makes person X a "ufologist" and person Y "not a ufologist"? Since this isn't a subject that is recognized as existing in academia, Wikipedia should not be trying to demarcate who is and isn't one who studies this subject. We don't have a List of Magicians of the Dark Arts or a List of Klingon linguists for similar reasons. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:52, 29 September 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 but revert. There might be usable material in the history, and the history libelous so that it should be removed. Therefore I am not actually deleting the history, but reverting to an older version. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leuren Moret

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Leuren Moret (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I do not think this particular scientist is notable enough for her own article. See WP:PROF. She does not seem to have enough mainstream media attention to establish her notability. We need to have more than just "alternative media interviews" in order to establish reliably and neutrally the biography, credentials, and impact of this particular person. Without such sources (which are sorely lacking) we cannot write a Wikipedia-calibre article. Let her get some mainstream media attention and then we can include her. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep -- looks like someone went through removing references about half a year ago. I'm afraid you are simply not familar with Google News, there are quite a few mainstream news results for her. Get rid of the stupid YouTube videos and spam and wiki-copies, she gets about 11,000 ghits. I'm not really comfy with the article tone or how it's been edited, but they cleaned it up after the last AfD and it's gone downhill at somepoint -- the answer is simply to fix it up again. -- Logical Premise Ergo? 18:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like your Google News search turned up a lot more "promotional" interviews from very minor news-outfits like Vive Le Canada, Collective Bellaciao, and Bay Area Indymedia. While I'm sure many of these news-sources are worth reading, they aren't really the caliber of notability we usually require for satisfying the media attention portion of WP:BIO. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Daily Star and Tehran Times are not minor-news outfits. If it's verifiable, there's no BLP, the person is widely discussed and in the media -- and she is -- I don't really consider notability an issue. Thank you for your comments , though. -- Logical Premise Ergo? 18:43, 29 September 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. Or nomination withdrawn, take your pick (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ximena Valero

[edit]
Ximena Valero (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article asserts notability but does not provide sufficient evidence of it. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 19:27, 29 September 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. Maxim(talk) 19:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No chance this will pass AfD, so I'm closing this early.

You Can't Spell Slaughter Without Laughter

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
You Can't Spell Slaughter Without Laughter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

As-yet-unreleased debut album by band of unclear notability. Band page has been deleted several times for various reasons. Contested prod. ... discospinster talk 17:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Henry Strauss

[edit]
Dr. Henry Strauss (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Does not meet wikipedia notability guidelines for fiction. See article's talk page for some history. Deb (talk) 16:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was nomination was withdrawn. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

YahZarah

[edit]
YahZarah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable singer. No substantial additions to article since its creation. Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:V (article has been tagged for lack of references since December 2006). —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 16:42, 29 September 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 Plies discography. Cirt (talk) 02:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pants Hang Low

[edit]
Pants Hang Low (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Actually, I'm just an opponent of the delete prod method, and believe the Wikicommunity's consensus is needed for an article to be deleted. So I replaced the Delete Prod template with an AfD one. Anyway, I'd say Redirect to Plies discography until it becomes more notable, then when it does, recreate it with sources Tom Danson (talk) 16:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). Whpq (talk) 17:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Result Nomination Withdrawn (non-admin closure).--Lucy-marie (talk) 10:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sudokube

[edit]
Sudokube (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article cites no sources. A quick search brings up nothing except adverts from people selling it and a few blog entries. Ergo, non-notable. It also doesn't make very much sense, as some people have pointed out on the talk page, so there's nothing worth saving and merging into any other articles. Should also delete these redirects: Roxdoku, Sudoku cube, Sudoku kube and Sudocube GDallimore (Talk) 16:15, 29 September 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, referencing problem has been fixed and the article re-written.(non-admin closure) Beeblebrox (talk) 02:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mulga Bill's Bicycle

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Mulga Bill's Bicycle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested PROD. The PROD reasoning was basically that this might be a notable poem, but there's not really an article here, and no sources whatsoever. The user removing the PROD added some original research about the poem's possible meaning, but still no sources. My own search did not turn up any reliable sources either, and the poem is already at Wikiquote Beeblebrox (talk) 15:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - yes the poem is at wikisource. It is a notable poem and worth having an article on. Not totally sure what notability guideline is strictly applicable here. if one takes Wikipedia:Notability (books) - the poem would meet at least criteria 1 and 5. Now the article has been started, it is very easy to find sources and to write and article in accordance with the guideline at Wikipedia:Lyrics and poetry. I just didn't feel like rescuing it right now - but I will work on it.--Matilda talk 21:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ec)Comment As the original PRODder, my reason for deletion was given as "This is not an encyclopedia article but an original source poem. The poem is already at wikisource:Mulga Bill's Bicycle so trans-wiki is not needed. The poem is arguably notable enough for an encyclopaedia article if someone was prepared to take the time to find independent third party sources and then write the content. However, the article in its current format is unsuitable for Wikipedia" i.e., deletion under WP:NOT. Since an editor had taken the time to make a start on turning this article into something approaching an encyclopedia article and another editor had declared an interest on the talk page, I was prepared to wait a while before nominating at AfD. I do think it entirely possible that an article on this topic will meet WP:N; Banjo Paterson is arguably Australia's most well known poet and this poem is a key part of his works. If it is not quite as well known as Waltzing Matilda or The Man from Snowy River, it is certainly as famous as The Man from Ironbark. -- Mattinbgn\talk 21:34, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am working on some sources now - I would appreciate at least about 1 hour please - thanks. For a source try http://www.sdn.ac.uk/dixneuf/April05/lloyd/pegasus.pdf - page 4 of 9 - just for starters. Try googling. The work is notable. I was prepared to support a PROD as I didn't want to work on it and obviously merely the text of the poem was insufficient. Given the article is started I see no need for deletion or redirection. --Matilda talk 21:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's just it, i decided to AfD this after doing a Google search. I'm not sure the souce you have cited qualifies fo Wikipedia's definition of a reliable source. I'm frankly baffled by the idea that we shouldn't delete an article because someone "started it". What is AfD for then? Anyway, if you don't like the redirect idea we don't have to do it, and this debate will run the full 5 days, giving you or anyone else more than enough time to locate sources.Beeblebrox (talk) 22:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the source I just cited was Lloyd, Rosemary (April 2005). "Reinventing Pegasus: Bicycles and the Fin-de-Siècle imagination" (pdf). Journal of the Society of Dix-Neuviémistes (4): 55. ISSN 1478-7318. Retrieved 2008-09-29. - how does the Society (see more at http://www.sdn.ac.uk/dixneuf/aboutdixneuf.htm) not meet WP:RS? - it is an academic refereed journal. Furthermore, a relatively recent edition of the poem has been continuously in print since 1973 and has won two awards. Nobody has suggested we cannot delete articles just because somebody started them. We delete because the subject is not notable. The article or stub is not required to provide refs until notability is questioned. More references are available and are currently being provided as the article is being developed. As it is a notable poem, a redirect is not appropriate. --Matilda talk 23:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep regardless of all WP:N conventions or every single Afd criteria - it is an inherent part of Australian culture has been utilised in childrens literature and has been transposed over time into the name of a musical group and is as Australian as vegemite, meat pies and edna everage - I await afds of the same - also the refs added take it well out of afd territory surely SatuSuro 00:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While I think the article should be kept and I agree with you about the appropriateness of Google as a reference source (especially for these types of articles), we can't assume that people from elsewhere can read minds. We need to make sure articles have valid references or else they will end up at AfD. The nomination was in good faith and the nominator has stated that he is more than willing to withdraw the nomination if necessary. Cheers, Mattinbgn\talk 00:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Fair enough, it just convinces me that there are very strong arguments for and against afd being global SatuSuro 00:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: When I first looked at the article a couple of days ago, there was not much in it, and no references at all. However, since then, a group of editors, especially user:Matilda and user:SatuSuro, have put a lot of effort into improving the article, and their efforts deserve praise. The article now has lots of references to back it up. The poem is one of the most famous in Australia, and is obviously notable, as is Banjo Patterson's other work, The Man from Snowy River. Since the article has been improved, it is now a definite "keep".--Lester 01:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just to clarify, I did not say at any time that the poem was not notable, just that it's notability had not been proven by citing reliable sources. That problem has clearly been fixed now. We can save the debate on ignoring all AfD criteria for another day. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Professional humor

[edit]
Professional humor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unreferenced original research tagged so for well over a year with no slightest attmempts to improve. Judging from some of its utterly ridiculous phrases, the page is not maintained nor even monitored. No prejudice against recreation of a reasonable encyclopedic article according to wikipedia standards. Laudak (talk) 15:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Totally unnecessary article. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a line 16:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I Don't Do

[edit]
I Don't Do (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Pop music single released by a glamour model attempting a pop career. Article claims the single reached number 27 in the UK, but searching the UK chart archive on www.everyhit.com reveals that this is in fact not true and it did not even make the top 40. ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:25, 29 September 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 G7 by TexasAndroid , NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 17:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exodus of the Spanish population of Gibraltar in 1704

[edit]
Exodus of the Spanish population of Gibraltar in 1704 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Obvious content fork, the article more or less duplicates material already in the History of Gibraltar. I'd personally recommend rather that any new material is merged into that article before deletion. Justin talk 12:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you noticed the {{underconstruction}} template? That's the reason why it currently duplicates the content of History of Gibraltar. The topic is encyclopedic and I didn't have a special interest in including it even under the scope of the Wikiproject Gibraltar (another wikipedist did it and even commented: "t seems to me that it could become a very interesting article"). It seems to me that this deletion is more related to the campaing you've begun against me that to any rational argument. As long as you just keep on reverting my editions with futile arguments, complain against me on the grounds of no neutrality... it seems to me just another element of harassment. If you don't feel it's necessary to wait until the article is finished before nominating it for deletion, feel free. I don't mind. I'll keep on working on it and include it whenever it is finished. Best regards --Ecemaml (talk) 13:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was nominated purely because it is a collection of excerpts from another article and contrary to the tag at the top of the page no work had been done for a few days. Content forking is a valid reason for deletion but I don't have a problem with puting the AFD debate on hold for a while. However, I am not prepared to tolerate anymore baseless accusations being levelled against me, there really is no excuse whatsoever for incivility. You are the one to have broken WP:3RR and I'll remind you here that I chose not to make a report to avoid escalating tensions any further. There is no need whatsoever to raise the tension by indulging in personal attacks. Justin talk 14:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, in the same way, I don't want to escalate tensions any further. I sincerely apologize for interpreting that reverting again and again my editions, removing my messages from your talk page, campaigning against me, allowing xenophobic messages again the Wikipedia I contribute most in your talk page without deletion or warning, filing a complain on me and eventually asking for deleting the articles I'm working on, was sort of crusade (as RedCoat name it below) against me. I don't know how I could have thought so. Sorry again --Ecemaml (talk) 16:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with the article at this moment. It has been tagged as under construction and still needs a lot of work. I personally think it is early days to consider deleting the article. Nevertheless, I strongly believe that considerable work should be carried out on it as soon as possible, rather than just leaving it as a collection of excerpts from an other article for any longer. --Gibmetal 77talk 13:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Unless the article can be expanded in line with Wikipedia's policies on citing verifiable, authoritative sources sources and asserting significance, my vote remains delete". Have you sort of thelepatic power proving that the article won't be expanded in line with Wikipedia's policies on citing verifiable and authoritative sources sources? It seems a quite strange preemptive way to remove articles. --Ecemaml (talk) 15:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have obviously misread my comment. I have never claimed the article won't be expanded in line with Wikipedia's policies on citing verifiable and authoritative sources. However, as it stands now, the article meets the relevant criteria for deletion. RedCoat10 (talk) 15:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the point is that your "vote" is Delete. I could have understood a personal message in my talk page. Sort of "the article, as is now, is a mere collection of excerpts... if you're not planning to expand it in the foreseeable future, it will be necessary to delete it". As long as I've been massively reverted, accused of massive POV edition, personally threatened... it's difficult to have time to work in articles. However, this time you win. --Ecemaml (talk) 15:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A message to that effect would have been contrary to Wikipedia's policy on consensus. WP:AFD provides for a forum in which the community as a whole can decide whether or not an article is worthy of inclusion, not me. It seems that whenever someone disagrees with you, instead of discussing it constructively, you simply attribute it to some nonexistent crusade against you. This is not a mindset that is conducive to reaching a consensus. RedCoat10 (talk) 16:02, 29 September 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. lifebaka++ 15:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reclosing as no consensus per objection raised at my talk page here. Newspaper references were provided in the article, and delete arguments appear to have ignored this. lifebaka++ 21:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mullanchery M Velaian

[edit]
Mullanchery M Velaian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Notability of the subject not established. The article was speedy deleted for the same reason and recreated by the same author (User:Bose1234). Docku:“what up?” 15:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment from author:

U can Verify Using the photo which i posted in wikipedia.every thing is papercutting some with photo alone some with explianation.

Image-literacy_campaign.jpg. Is to for showing Literacy campaign held in 1989

Image velvi1.JPG and velvi2.JPG, this to expain the program which organised by him for his village development. this is a paper cutting.

Similarly every photo which i posted is Papercutting from leading tamil news papers. there is some article of the Newspaper in wikipedia itself.

Why i am requesting u not to delete this page is because this about a Great Man in Kanyakumari District, who is Doing Social Service, and he is a drama Play writer, Actor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bose1234 (talk • contribs) 03:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC) Docku:“what up?” 04:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was the nomination was withdrawn. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fox River Mills

[edit]
Fox River Mills (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article (about a sock manufacturer) demonstrates no notability, apparently being sourced exclusively from the company's own website Nyttend (talk) 14:58, 29 September 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. hoax. See confirmation below re: creator TravellingCari 18:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Road Bikers (2009 film)

[edit]
Road Bikers (2009 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is almost certainly a hoax. It cites no sources, there is no mention in IMDb or in Rotten Tomatoes, and it does not appear in its supposed stars' filmographies. The article is the only contribution of its author RoadBikersFilm2009 (talk · contribs) and has also been edited by 121.44.5.76 (talk · contribs) whose other contributions are to film hoaxes like Doomsday Movie, also at AfD. If not a hoax, it fails WP:NFF. Contested PROD. JohnCD (talk) 13:34, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Best Kept Secret(Leona Lewis album)

[edit]
Best Kept Secret(Leona Lewis album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:MUSIC. No verifiable information from reliable sources. No charts, no album sales. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 13:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn Docherty

[edit]
Glenn Docherty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This appears to be a vanity page for a local government councillor. Nothing here suggests notability that would warrent his inclusion against general presumption that local government politicians are not notable. Grahame (talk) 13:05, 29 September 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 as meeting WP:N and WP:V requirements. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 08:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ama Sumani

[edit]
Ama Sumani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This womans death though tragic is not noteworthy enough for inclusion, it had no impact on UK policy and she is to all intents and purposes unknown Zaq12wsx (talk) 12:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just for clarification, but why does that make it noteworthy (please don't take this as an attack). This woman's case did not affect UK immigration policy in any way, it did not result in any novel changes of legal procedure, the courts did not warrant it a uniquely interesting case (it set no precedent); to me theres a parallel with victims of crime, i simply don't think wiki should become a log of human suffering where victims and their families who would otherwise have been able to get on with their lives are constantly reminded of what happened even though the event itself has long been forgotten in the public mind - because it was ultimately insignificant.
This article does raise some issues about wiki's definition of noteworthy, the opening paragraph makes clear what is noteworthy for this website is (correctly) distinct from 'fame', 'popularity' and 'importance' yet it goes on to list 'significant coverage' as a indicator of noteworthyness even though in these times most news organisations duplicate directly articles posted by newswires or redit those articles to create their own simply to fill space in 24 hour news; the result is practically anything that happens is seemingly echoed endlessly regardless of the actual uniqueness of an event.
In cases such as this i'd rather go by the more objective assessment of 'did this affect policy? did it set a precedent?' in otherwords has something changed because of it that in retrospect does make it noteworthy. In the case of Ama Sumani i can't see anything that indicates that, and all we're left with is an electronic rubber necking of a victim.
I'd like to reiterate that this isn't an attack on anyone and i hope you appreciate im only trying to open a dialogue :) Zaq12wsx (talk) 09:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to discuss the WP guidelines for inclusion and notability, I think this is not the place (or the way) to do it. You better go here[42] instead. Your main worries above appear to be POV to me. You write "i simply don't think wiki should become ..." and "i'd rather go by the more objective assessment of..." That's fine, but the article meets the current WP guidelines for inclusion and I most certainly do not agree with your description of this case as "insignificant". (These links are all just "rubbernecking"? [43],[44], [45], [46], [47], [48])    SIS  11:15, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh im aware of the difference between what this discussion ia about and discussions about wiki policy; i was simply elaborating for clarification.
Ultimately yes i consider the case to be insignificant; from an institutional point of view it did nothing of significance, neither the judicial system nor the government regarded it as setting a precedent, rather it obtained a degree of notoriety (which in the given context is the closest synonym to fame). Regarding the links you've posted - i would consider that to be journalistic rubber necking.
To juxtapose with an article on a crime, Mary-Ann Leneghan's death was written about on wiki but the article was deleted (correctly in my opinion), that was an instance where there was far more media attention and the where the court of appeal did raise certain issues of importance. One of the points i remembered being raised was wiki can't and shouldn't be a catalogue of suffering - and that was essentially one of the justifications being given for retaining that article. I wasn't trying to get into a discussion on wiki policy by bringing up the notability guidelines, i was just pointing out 'significant coverage' doesn't mean anything on its own.
kind regardsZaq12wsx (talk) 12:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell WP:GNG and WP:V are met on all counts. I haven't got anything else to add, really. I see what you're saying but I just don't agree (as explained above).    SIS  11:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per SIS. The core guidelines are met, and the closest guideline that would back you up, WP:BIO1E and WP:BLP1E, in my opinion just barely misses in Sumani's case—clearly more than one "event" happened to her and the press kept their reporting up for quite some time. I think you're mistaking importance for notability, the former is subjective, the latter is objective. hateless 15:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply, english isn't my first language and because of that im afraid i can't link into the guidelines of wiki as confidentally as other people, so please excuse me a little, but im confused by what you mean by 'clearly more than one event' happened. Surely there was only one event that happened which i would take to be her deportation? that is what brought her to the medias attention, would a follow up reporting her death be an event? if someone is run over by a car and the news reports it, then that person dies at a later date with the news briefly reporting in addition, can those really be called to seperate events? surely it is the instance or thing that initiated the media attention in the first place that is the event?
Regarding importance and notability im trying to be as objective as possible, it isn't that i have something against this woman i just don't think any encyclopedia would include an entry on her, to give an external reasoning, none of the institutions of the uk consider her to be notable, her case set no precedent, wouldn't that be considered the most objective test of all? there have been other people who have been ill and have been deported and have subsequently died, you can say this womans case had some noteriety (fame) but if you were to zoom 10 years into the future would her case be notable either to the uk immigration department/home office, the judicial system or the wider public; i would answer no. She was just someone who happened to catch the medias attention.
Please forgive me speaking in the first person, although i know the difference between what this page is for and wiki policy discussions when i try and frame my thoughts i can't think of any other way of putting them down, the poor communication isn't an attempt to put forward an non neutral viewpoint!
kindregards
Zaq12wsx (talk) 20:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Zaq, we don't follow "UK rules" on what notability is, nor do we follow what the dictonary says. We have our own objective criteria on it, and this subject passes it. As for WP:BIO1E, there are at least two events being covered: her deportation, and the media backlash against it. Note that this is very much similar to how Madeline McCann would pass WP:BIO1E: if you don't count the media attention, then McCann would only be notable for one event. The bottom line is that we made notability the standard for inclusion because if a subject is notable, then there are enough published, reliable sources available for an accurate article. With the plethora of news article available about Sumani, you cannot make a credible argument that the article cannot be accurately sourced. As long as notability is satisfied, insignificance is not a factor. hateless 18:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah thank you, i better understand your point - though i still disagree with it! :)
I do not consider the media reaction to be an event in itself as it is almost always simply the process of reporting, it becomes a circular argument
If it is reported it is notable
It is notable if it is reported
It begs the question of what is notable? By bringing up 'uk rules' as you put it, i was only trying to bring a sense of objectivity to the discussion. Regarding the Mccann case i disagree with the comparisson because in that instance the feedback between the original incident and the media meant the coverage did become a seperate event, and as we can see there is a seperate article that only deals with the reaction of the disapearance because it was so unique, in order for the coverage to become an event the coverage has to become part of the event and not simply cover it. It is that distinction that i do not think that happened in the ama sumani case - and i do not think happens in most cases. The mccann dissapearance was an outlier.
To try and be concise, i consider there to be one event (her deportation), the media coverage only reported the story and did not become part of the story and as such should not be considered an additional event. In addition the very first reference in wiki's notability (people) article is from a dictionary, and i don't consider this particular case to be unusual enough to warrant an article.
kind regards
Zaq12wsx (talk) 01:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 01:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1989 Kedah Madrasah fire

[edit]
1989 Kedah Madrasah fire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A genuine tragedy, to be certain, but the encyclopedic notability of this event is absent from the article. Fires are common and there is no evidence that this blaze brought about any significant changes or repercussions. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 21:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 11:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The title of the article's sole reference, Mangsa Kebakaran Paling Ramai - Buku Rekod Malaysia Edisi Kedua, is translated as "Most numerous victims of fire - Malaysian Book of Records (2nd Edition)" in Malay. Given the fire was listed in such a book, it has to amount to something. I believe the problem lies in the fact that there is a language barrier while very little is revealed in the article on the effects and importance of the incident; research on the topic is particularly hampered by the inaccessibility of old archives in Malaysia, and, even if they were republished, are limited to a handful of surviving printed media which are usually hard to come by if they are not reprinted. In the interest of minimising already excessive symetic bias towards Western POV, especially in the case of articles on recent accidents that are less severe, I would have opted to keep the article and await further expansion before passing proper judgement. - Two hundred percent (talk) 12:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per brewcrewer. Mystache (talk) 13:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per brewcrewer; but we need references, even if not online or in English. Cultural bias is an ongoing problem here, along with recentism. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Only one small reference found. Fails notability guidelines. GtstrickyTalk or C 15:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:NOTNEWS is an essay. WP:NOT , on the other hand, doesn't suggest that we can't report on notable news, only that we shouldn't be trying to act as a news site. 1989 is not news, and that's an incredibly illogical premise for a vote. As for, me, it's verifiable and we have no OR in the article. IAR says if we can't be sure about notability due to language issues, keep it rather than delete it. -- Logical Premise Ergo? 18:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. I'm inclined to Keep this one, as well. Since the event was in 1989, I don't take NOTNEWS as a valid rationale for deletion - though, if this were last week, I'd probably agree with the nom. I don't have a doubt about notability as such, but more sources must be forthcoming. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A book has been published about this fire. [49][50] Phil Bridger (talk) 14:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Gallery of coins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

WP:NOTREPOSITORY: Wikipedia is not the place for mere lists of photographs. Contrary to some of the previous discussions, this is not about the application of fair use, which is irrelevant for my reasoning. These are pages which have been proposed for deletion thrice over the last years (the last nomination is a year and a half ago, so I think I waited sufficiently long before renominating). Each time, people defended them as being useful if textual content is provided. However, no one seems interested to produce said text. We have other decent or good articles on many coins and banknotes, and there is no indication that the articles currently up for deletion will ever be more than a gallery. Furthermore (but this can be solved), they are incomplete and incorrect, which again indicates that not many people are interested in solving the serious problems with these articles, although said improvements were the reason for keeping them for the last two years.

Also nominated:

Delete as a plain gallery. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 09:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as useful, not "mere". Pawyilee (talk) 10:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could you expand on the usefulness of e.g. Gallery of Africa coins or Gallery of circulating European coins? I fail to see any use for thme, but I'm willing to be convinced otherwise. Fram (talk) 10:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But why would we want such a gallery? "Because they do it as well" is not really a good answer... What information is given by these articles that isn't already given much better by the articles on individual countries' currencies and so on? Why would we reproduce the Hungarian forint in a couple of galleries if we have a full article on it? Fram (talk) 04:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Individual articles do not allow for compare and contrast of coinage in a given area. As for why some coin images might be unacceptable at Commons, the "local copyright reason" is almost always because no one can find out what the local copyright is in many countries, not even by personally going to their treasuries. Yet that does not stop the international trade in coins, complete with images of what is on offer. What is "on offer" in the galleries proposed for deletion is, as I said, compare and contrast. Pawyilee (talk) 10:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is not really sufficient. What is being compared? Nothing. You show a bunch of coins or banknotes, without discussing anything: material, comparative value, size, design, ... What exactly is being "compared and contrasted" here? Or here? "Hey look, Belgium has an eight-sided coin". (Actually, we don't) "Hey, that Austrian coin is much larger than the Belarusian one!" (who knows, the article doesn't tell me). "Hungarian coins are in two colours!" (Only one of them is, in fact). The gallery has no indication, no explanation, as to what can be compared and contrasted, and is very incomplete and incorrect. Furthermore, is "comparison of circulating African coins" or "comparison of circulating Asia and Oceania coins" even a notable subject? Fram (talk) 11:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 11:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
to Commons:Category:Coins
to Commons:Category:Coins by country
to Commons:Category:Money (for lack of a better category)
I think this will maximize usefulness while remaining true to what Wikipedia is. I also recommend that we keep the article histories, so anyone interested in improving what we've got at Commons can use them as references. --Explodicle (T/C) 15:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (changed to delete, see below) Number 1, there is no deadline. Number 2 WP:NOTPAPER. If specialized encyclopideas have this, we should too. That is one of the founding policies. There is potential here for a great article. That's all that is required. Now if there is a fair use issue here, that is entirely different and such images should clearly be removed. At the least, follow Explodicle's suggestions so this can be improved in the future. Hobit (talk) 16:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no objection to an article containing a discussion of each coin. But a gallery article isn't the place for it. For example, we have Albanian lek which covers the Albanian currency including the coins. That's the place where you would put such discussion. -- Whpq (talk) 10:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Whenever I hear WP:NOTPAPER tossed around I which to reach for it's collariy, Wikipedia is not toilet paper. It's an unreferenced, disorganized pile of images. Having this all listed on Commons, I could see. Bundling it into articles here is pointless. And oddly enough, I can't find an article anything LIKE this in my World Book, Encyclopedia Brittanica, or Funk and Wagnalls sets of print encyclopedia. It's not a useful article. It hasn't been improved or expanded upon, it's a fair use nightmare, and it isn't encyclopedic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Logical Premise (talk • contribs) 18:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with specialized articles about coins, or I would have nominated things like Coins of the Hungarian forint for deletion. But please, the articles up for deletion (or soft redirection, I have no problem with that) are nothing like that and can never become anything like that, because they are way too broad in scope (imagine the Hungarian article times 200...) and start from a wrong position ("gallery"). If you have to rename and completely rewrite articles (or in this case, write articles), then there is nothing left to save (on Wikipedia) and the articles are better of deleted or soft redirected. There are whole encyclopedias (catalogue raisonnée) for paintings by famous artists: articles on these paintings are perfectly acceptable and should often be encouraged. But a gallery of paintings by Rubens (which obviously has no fair use problems either) should be deleted on sight. We write articles, we don't provide galleries of quotes or images. Fram (talk) 07:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to delete AfD shouldn't be for organizational changes, but since there is a good way to organize this that doesn't break WP:NOTREPOSITORY, we should do it that way. No objection to the soft redirect proposal. Hobit (talk) 17:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've been an avid proponent of these galleries time and again. I feel they are enclopedic and useful. Unfortunatly, much needed improvements haven't been made. It's most obvious the keeps aren't gonna win this one, therefore the soft redirect move to commons would be the best choice. Joe I 18:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I don't care, this is trivial. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 08:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Three pronged revolver

[edit]
Three pronged revolver (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Questionable notability. The author said in removing the PROD notice that it's "a well-known event in local Irish history", and the first sentence says it's a "famous incident", but the author provides no references, and I can't find any reference to it via Google. Largo Plazo (talk) 11:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - seems entirely made up, and considering the author reverts Lurgan on what appears to be a COI basis I have doubts over the legitimacy. As above no google references beyond wikipedia, or links to it. --Blowdart | talk 11:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Potentially speedy as flagrant vandalism. Revolvers did not exist in 1790, and the article is in places unsalvageably incoherent. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good point, though not strictly true. The revolver article traces them back to 1597. However, the Oxford English Dictionary attests the word "revolver" only as far back as 1835, well after 1790. The article doesn't say when the poem was supposed to have been written. It could have been much later then the alleged event. But then, how likely is it that a new, jocular expression like "three pronged revolver" would have been coined two generations or more after the event? That would be like us coining new terms now for events that occurred around 1960. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arizona State Route 48

[edit]
Arizona State Route 48 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I have not been able to find any reliable sources for this. Prod was removed because "the deletion of this article may be controversial". NE2 11:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not a state route but a proposed one. So there's no automatic notability here. Now, if it was widely covered in reliable sources, it might be notable even in its proposed state... but the article doesn't establish that. Without sources we don't know who's proposing it, how serious the proposal is, or even when it was proposed and what it's status is now. --Rividian (talk) 14:50, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverfiable. --Polaron | Talk 15:16, 29 September 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. Banned troll. Please let me know ASAP when you find this pattern of hoax articles about children's films.. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 02:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doomsday Movie

[edit]
Doomsday Movie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Article seems to have been created to support previously deleted additions to the article on Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer. No google or IMDB results seem to point to this being simply a hoax rather than crystal-ballery. OBM | blah blah blah 10:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is a real-world "game" to construct "plausible" hoaxes to post them on Wiki. There is then a money pool set up and the person who guesses how long it lasts on Wiki wins the pool. The growing addition of hoaxes will get worse. I do think that speedies should be allowed for hoaxes. If the hoax turns out to be fact, then the article can be returned. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I removed everything that was obviously lies: the future dates, the director and producer, the list of "parody films", etc. When I was done, nothing was left, so I tagged it for speedy deletion per WP:CSD#A3. Plrk (talk) 12:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    My edits were reverted, but I won't go wheel-warring. However, in defense of my actions, I would like to refer to Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, Wikipedia:Snowball clause, and Wikipedia:Use common sense. Even though this article is clearly bullshit from top to bottom - dated in the future, external link leading to a 404 page, WALL-E listed as a parody movie, and Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer listed as producers even though they are clearly not - it has still not been deleted. What the hell is wrong?! Plrk (talk) 13:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy - process should not be followed for process' sake. Plrk (talk) 13:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I reverted for the reasons stated in the edit log. Specifically that blanking an article is against AfD policy and that's effectively what you did. I'm also unhappy with the idea of blanking the article and then claiming a3 as it seems an attempt to circumvent procedure. In this instance I can understand the reasons but don't agree with the actions and am worried it would set a dangerous precedent. I'd be quite happy to see the article speedied under g3 (as an obvious hoax) or as a speedy close of this AfD (per WP:SNOW) and in general I'm quite happy for processes not to be followed (I'm aware of all policies quoted) if it is clearly explained that this is what is happening / proposed and why. Indeed I'd even have been happy with a generic speedy tag where you explained your reasoning and referenced WP:IAR or similar. In this case it was the way it was being attempted and the lack of accountability that I was unhappy with rather than the proposed result. Dpmuk (talk) 22:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand your actions completely, and it is not all too unlikely I would have done the same thing myself. However, while blanking an article is against AfD policy, removing obviously untrue statements is crucial for the encyclopedia's survival - and in this case, the article was left blank after this was done. I just wish someone could close this and get rid of the damned article. Plrk (talk) 22:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with haste, per nom and the comments above. --Lockley (talk) 22:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as obvious hoax. See also my comments above. Dpmuk (talk) 22:30, 30 September 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 as disambiguation page.  Sandstein  10:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Camden Wyoming, Delaware

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Camden Wyoming, Delaware (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Camden-Wyoming,_Delaware (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

These articles merely describe a combination of two individual towns, Camden, Delaware and Wyoming, Delaware. They cite no references, are poorly written, and the information about each town can be presented in their own articles. Dough4872 (talk) 02:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

fixed and added. DCEdwards1966 19:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment See U.S. Geological Survey Geographic Names Information System: Camden Wyoming Post Office on the GNIS: there's somewhat of recognition. I'll come back later. Nyttend (talk) 14:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both "Camden Wyoming" and "Camden-Wyoming". Not an actual town. It just so happens that the two towns are under one ZIP code and that the U.S. post office has chosen the name "Camden Wyoming" most likely because neither town is dominant over the other. Any content that one can put in this article would probably be better in the actual municipality articles. One can always mention in both the Camden and Wyoming articles that it shares the same ZIP code with the other. --Polaron | Talk 16:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Looking at the Postal Service's ZIP Code lookup, I find that the ZIP Code 19934 (serving both of these communities) is officially named Camden Wyoming, Delaware. I really don't think we should delete, as it would be better not to have a redlink for a post office name: but what should we do? I think that the best solution would be to turn it into somewhat of a disambiguation page: have something saying that the post office name is CW, named for two towns located in the ZIP Code area: C and W. Nyttend (talk) 19:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Perhaps a small page on the status of the two towns in terms of postal services, etc., and linking to the individual towns for more detailed information? Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 20:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if turned into a disambiguation page for the two towns. If the two towns share more than just a ZIP code, such as schools, police or fire departments, then an article about the dual-city might be feasible. The only other alternative I see is to redirect to one or the other, but which? DCEdwards1966 20:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Normally I'd advocate a redirect to the more impressive one, but the reason you give is the reason I didn't want to: neither one is much more impressive than the other. Nyttend (talk) 04:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, treelo radda 00:12, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a DAB page to the individual towns. The Census data on population, size, demographics in the article are for the Census Zip Code Tabulation Area for Zip 19934. The ZCTA has a population of 9,500, but the combined population for both towns is a little over 3,000. From that standpoint alone, the article is innaccurate. Moreover, the official Town of Camden website indicates that while water and sewer and fire department are jointly handled by both Camden and Wyoming, "efforts to merge the two towns have been rejected by one or both of the towns several times."[51] It appears the name of the post office is merely a convenience, since the U.S. Postal Service accepts both Camden, DE and Wyoming, DE as acceptable addresses for Zip 19934.DCmacnut<> 16:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Donuts N' Glory

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Donuts N' Glory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Seems like a borderline case, but appears to currently fail WP:MUSIC. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to deletion proposal

[edit]

I added info about the band being one of the first releases by Liberation Records. The band is listed on Liberation's website as being in high demand for additional releases, and the label is hoping to release some of their older recordings. Hopefully that is enough to overcome A7 for speedy deletion.

Web info on the band is pretty scarce (aside from their inclusion in seemingly every lyrics site), and I think it would be a good resource for all available information to be collected here in one place. Bosterson (talk) 22:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)Bosterson — Bosterson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 22:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete they may meet one of the many criteria at WP:MUSIC but, unless it's made clear which one in the article (and referenced) I have to stick with delete for lack of notability and verifiability. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think I can prove notability under those criteria. The point was for this page to be a repository of any information other people can dig up. All I have been able to find is that they released one album. I cannot find any record of tours or any reviews of their music (which I'm sure exist somewhere). Obviously, as a very small independent punk band, they never received any major media attention or were nominated for any popular awards. As such, I can only conclude that Wikipedia's criteria for music notability are extremely biased towards the narrow category of mainstream music distributed by the media companies. If the only way to be notable is to have been popular (which can only happen if your music is promoted by a mainstream media outlet, and is impossible for bands that deliberately reject the mainstream music labels), then small, independent, and counter-culture bands by definition cannot be notable. Surely it is important to keep a record of what society as a whole was listening to during a given period, but there is no reason to not also make note of the range of different groups, regardless of mainstream popularity. This is the internet, and space is, after all, free. Bosterson (talk) 20:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry you can't find the stuff needed to make a reliable article but, to call Wikipedia biased towards mainstream when WP:MUSIC is one of the loosest criteria for inclusion I've ever seen is a bit out there. Lots of articles on here are about non-mainstream bands and such. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • All I'm saying is that, without using the WP:MUSIC criteria as justification, why shouldn't this band be included in a broad, online, cultural encyclopedia? And if, by definition, this band never won any major music awards, made any music videos, released anything on major labels, or was featured in any major music publications, then how can its notability be proved? I assume the solution is to delete this page and just have then band's name listed on the Liberation Records page, but if this page combines info from the other handful of pages about the band out on the web - if it is the most comprehensive source of information - then obviously a mere mention on a different Wikipedia page is not going to be as useful for the public. If someone wants to delete the page, go for it; I'm just saying that it seems like a Catch-22. Bosterson (talk) 16:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Shortest answer I can give is if they don't meet the criteria set out by the project in WP:MUSIC or in the more general WP:N than to put it bluntly they simply aren't worthy for gathering the information here as wikipedia is not a webhost. Use one of the various actual webhosts outthere though until they become notable in accordance with the criteria above though is perfectly acceptable and as long as it isn't in violation of one of our policies inclusion in an appropriate external links section may be deemed okay but, there are policies and guidelines for that to. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, treelo radda 00:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Maresca

[edit]
Frank Maresca (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Frank Maresca is not a notable person. He does not follow the guidelines and should be deleted. Lildandcd93 (talk) 22:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GeckoOS Backup Loader Game Compatibility List

[edit]
GeckoOS Backup Loader Game Compatibility List (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Hi

While a useful resource for Wii users, this doesn't belong on Wikipedia and should really be removed... Hideki (talk) 07:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - No reliable sources, only source is a blog. The GeckoOS Backup Loader doesn't have an article and there are no reliable sources to support an article. So if the program is not notable is the games it works with notable? Jons63 (talk) 00:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is an effort to catalog supported software, but is using Wikipedia as a host. These lists are common, but are usually hosted on their own wiki sites. Let the persons who made this set up their own wiki to catalog their efforts, as it isn't notable for Wikipedia. Rurik (talk) 09:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Goro Goro Iki

[edit]
Goro Goro Iki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

There is no evidence this series exists. The only place I can find anything about this show is here on Wikipedia. I am also including the following related articles in this nomination:

Delete as hoax. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KheloIPL

[edit]
KheloIPL (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable cricket game/website. Only sources cited are from the site itself and one from [www.iplmag.com iplmag.com], which doesn't really look that reliable (looks like a fan site). Very few google hits with which to establish notability: [52][53], and nothing on google news either: [54]. Alexa ranking approaching 10 million. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 20:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, treelo radda 00:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was nomination withdrawn Phil Sandifer (talk) 13:21, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of subcultures

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
List of subcultures (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Appears to be a recreation of deleted content. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of lifestyles (2nd nomination). Note that List of lifestyles now links to this page. Also, this list is an indiscriminate collection. There are literally thousands upon thousands of subcultures; attempting to list them all is not at all feasible. TallNapoleon (talk) 06:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I was looking at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of lifestyles (2nd nomination), which was deleted twice and then recreated as a link to this page, which has very similar content. I did not see the previous AFD for list of subcultures. I still maintain that this list is unmaintainable and theoretically infinite. If we absolutely MUST have something like this, couldn't we just use a category? TallNapoleon (talk) 18:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:41, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Manomaya

[edit]
Manomaya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a duplicate of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosha#Manomaya_kosha Tadakuni (talk) 23:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, treelo radda 00:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Minbari. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 08:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Minbari Fighting Pike

[edit]
Minbari Fighting Pike (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This element of fiction does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 22:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, treelo radda 00:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Morgan's ace harware

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Morgan's ace harware (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Seems utterly non-notable, and falls prey to some variant of Geogre's Law. 74 ghits (under the correct spelling, with a "d"). Probably could have prodded, but giving it the benefit of the doubt in case someone can find more evidence of notability. Grutness...wha? 23:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was holding on it due to possibly having some notability with the local area, and hoping the original author would expand it a bit. I'm trying to hold my trigger on tagging articles since I had my ass handed to me about 4 times today for it :) Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 23:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, treelo radda 00:03, 28 September 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 Sophie Choudry. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sophie chaudhary

[edit]
Sophie chaudhary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No links are provided, please provide links to back the Article. Also, please write your thoughts if the article should be deleted or kept...Nawal.1991 (talk) 04:00, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete : No context. Very short articles lacking sufficient context to identify the subject of the article. Bhaskar20 (talk) 19:19, 28 September 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 the nomination was withdrawn. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tangent between two circles

[edit]
Tangent between two circles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This seems to me to be a very minor bit of geometry and I am not certain that it warrants its own article. However this is only a weak delete--I'd like to hear what the community thinks.TallNapoleon (talk) 08:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn. TallNapoleon (talk) 21:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Marginally notable, and it looks like we have a lot of reasonable content now. --Hans Adler (talk) 18:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While the topic may just about be notable enough for discussion somewhere, this article doesn't make sense. It talks about 2 "points of tangency", when I can see eight points in the diagram which have a line tangent to the circle at them, and I don't see the point of including C++ code for a simple calculation. --Tango (talk) 14:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've seeded a smattering of content there. Perhaps some of you would like to pitch in? I'm sure it'd be fun and easy, especially for you. :) Rabi and I were Talking, and we decided to change the article's name to Tangent lines to circles, which you might prefer. I have to run off now, but I left you all an Easter egg there! Go in peace and delete no more — wait, is that how it goes? ;) Willow (talk) 17:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination Withdrawn, per all the changes made by Willow. The article is now much broader, far more clearly notable, and in general drastically improved. Amazing job! TallNapoleon (talk) 21:54, 30 September 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 Hulk (comics). Unsourced article history deleted. Cirt (talk) 02:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

War Wagon (comics)

[edit]
War Wagon (comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This element of fiction does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 22:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Was this !vote intended for a different article? The subject here is not a game. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, treelo radda 00:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ages of Myst III: Exile

[edit]
Ages of Myst III: Exile (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article has become stagnant game guide material that hasn't been modified or improved upon in any way for some time. No effort to assert real-world importance has been made in all this time.

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reasons:

Ages of Myst V: End of Ages (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Myst Online: Uru Live (Ages) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ages of Uru (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) --Kung Fu Man (talk) 10:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

M&M's World

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
M&M's World (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article contains no reliable sources and does not assert notability. -- JediLofty Talk to meFollow me 10:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:07, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Ginther

[edit]
Mark Ginther (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A stuntman. Did some things that are assertions of notability but overall, a simple Google test reveals a lot more Mark Ginthers than this guy. Doesn't seem notable enough. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. No arguments have been presented which address the provided sources. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Short stack

[edit]
Short stack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

There are numerous assertions of authority but this doesn't look like it passes WP:MUSIC. A new single is the best they have. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, I found this in WP:MUSIC: "Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network." They get played every day by a chain of stations in Australia (I don't know the parent company but in my city, Hobart, it's SeaFM and I think there is SeaFM in other places too). They also get played in "The Hit List" countdown on these stations.  PN57  23:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a source for that? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— IAmAnnoyed (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 13:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, Short Stack are rising young Australia Talent and are quite popular down here. They've not only beaten Britney Spears and Bullet For My Valentine for most popular video on youtube for a day, but they continually play on Fox FM, or 2Day FM as they call it in New South Wales... AND their on Video Hits every weekend. Short Stack have even done interviews with 2Day FM and Nova. They also have fanbases across the world, even America and Germany. visit their myspace > www.myspace.com/shortstackband I went to their Melbourne gig, trust me, their real, and awesome. Go see them support Simple Plan this October across Australia, and buy their new Single Shimmy A Go Go out now. =]--User:Dakota7104 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dakota7104 (talk • contribs) 12:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— Dakota7104 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 13:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm glad "their real and awesome" but I don't see any reliable 3rd party sources. Point me to them and, like Esradekan, I'll happily change my opinion.    SIS  12:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of Hulk supporting characters. Article history intact if someone wants to merge material. Cirt (talk) 02:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ogress (comics)

[edit]
Ogress (comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Recently created article on comic book character of insufficient notability. There's a reason this character did not already have an article, and this new article offers nothing to indicate that this should change. Doczilla STOMP! 07:49, 29 September 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. Cirt (talk) 02:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Akinobu Uraka

[edit]
Akinobu Uraka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable author known for only one work. BJTalk 06:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would say that when one doesn't speak Japanese and is admittedly ignorant of the genre in which the person works, a Google search is the best method of judging notability. If you have a suggestion of a better way, please do share it, but keep any snide comments to yourself. Also, the search results for his Japanese name isn't all that impressive either. I'm not saying the guy isn't notable necessarily, but a basic tenet of Wikipedia is verifiability - we need reliable sources establishing notability, and so far such sources seem hard to come by. faithless (speak) 22:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm a deletionist? I've never been accused of that before. Oh well, first time for everything, isn't that what they say? Or is it, "HURR HURR first time for everything?" I never can seem to get it straight. faithless (speak) 02:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:07, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Abdel Fattah

[edit]
Ahmed Abdel Fattah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unremarkable scientist. BJTalk 06:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

George Barbarouses

[edit]
George Barbarouses (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not notable fails WP:ATHLETE. Did not appear in fully professional league game or represent full national team. Contested PROD

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Divine Mafa

[edit]
Divine Mafa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

BLP of questionable notability, and it appears that the subject has repeatedly requested the deletion of the article. If this were Prince Charles, that obviously wouldn't matter, but we're dealing with a small-business owner here. Regardless of the subject's preferences (and more importantly), he just doesn't seem notable enough to warrant an encyclopedia article. Only a couple hundred Google hits; owning a boutique does not require encyclopedic coverage faithless (speak) 05:50, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There were some other claims to notability in earlier versions of the article but they were uncited and uncertain. Delete: unnotable.Babakathy (talk) 06:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This person may well be notable. There are various articles about him and his shops in the Memphis press which also give consistent versions of his "notable" activities both before-Memphis and whilst in-Memphis. However, it seems impossible to find any independent supporting evidence of this, or even evidence of his existence prior to his arrival in Memphis! Pdfpdf (talk) 12:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Lots of plausible claims, but no independent evidence of notability. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Had the earlier claims been sourced, I might feel differently. However, nothing is there now that indicates that this person is notable. →Wordbuilder (talk) 13:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Some of the earlier claims are definitely false, for example the claim here that a conviction under the Public Order and Security Act (POSA) carries a mandatory death sentence. Babakathy (talk) 17:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't see anything here asserted that would make him actually notable--whether or not he wanted to be included. DGG (talk) 05:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is a very passionate anonymous editor harassing me who will no doubt blame me when the article is deleted. I can live with that, but maybe someone else wants to educate this person on the AfD process while they still have the opportunity to contribute? (Yes, you're right, I'm not going to do it.) Pdfpdf (talk) 13:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The bizarre part is that the anonymous editor who is passionate about keeping the article uses the same IP as (presumably) someone else who says he is the Subject (ie Mafa) and has repeartedly blanked the article and asked for it and everything to do with it to be deleted. I can only assume it is two different editors using the same IP... I put a link on the talk page for the IP to the discussion here so they can follow if they want. Babakathy (talk) 13:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Even more bizarre is that so-called-D-Mafa claims to be in Memphis, whereas-so-called-Mcmillan claims to be in DC, yet they are both using the same IP address. I wouldn't have thought that was physically possible? Pdfpdf (talk) 14:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see that the passionate anon has now branched out into sock puppetry and has got himself blocked. So it doesn't look like he's going to get the chance to say anything here, which is sad, because although he has no idea what he's doing, and refuses to pay any attention to anyone trying to help him, he actually has some valid points.
I expect that it's completely unacceptable for me to vote for him, so I'll just summarise the intent of what I think he might say if he bothered to find out how wikipedia worked and stopped insulting people. I believe he would vote keep, and would say something like: "D Mafa is a very able and intelligent person, and has done some very impressive things in three fields: in the scientific field, he has created some inventions which have improved public health in Zimbabwe; he has worked as a medical professional improving public health in Zimbabwe, and; he has been politically active opposing Mugabe's regime." Sadly, he refuses to respond to requests for evidence of this, and refuses to acquaint himself with WP's requirements, so I am not in a position to to confirm (or deny) these claims, but I can tell you the anon is passionate about them!
In any case, given that there are four people (including me) saying: "There is no evidence that this person is notable", until there is some evidence, the above is irrelevant. I just feel it would be irresponsible of us if we closed this "discussion" without mentioning this person's unverified (and, it would seem, unverifiable) claims.
So, having got that off my chest, I now have a clear conscience and feel comfortable in saying: It seems quite clear that there is no evidence that this person is notable. Why is this debate still open? Pdfpdf (talk) 14:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
AfDs are usually kept open for five days to elicit a decent amount of community opinion. GlassCobra 14:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Thanks. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Delete fails WP:BIO GtstrickyTalk or C 14:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Anonymous editor 69.143.57.71 did actually post the below text to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, but it was reverted as vandalism as it was posted in the wrong place:

this article should not be deleted. The people who have listed it are anti-rhodes scholars. the valitdity of the request have been vouched for by three or so different independent individuals. - McMillan
The original post is here. Inserted for completeness by Babakathy (talk) 15:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Quest for Glory. Cirt (talk) 01:05, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glorianna

[edit]
Glorianna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article subject doesn't have any notability, and hasn't been improved in months. A large chunk of it is also game guide material. The parent game article will be unaffected by its removal. Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep.  Sandstein  10:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anthropos yia oles tis doulies

[edit]
Anthropos yia oles tis doulies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No assertion of notability. / Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 21:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hope the translation helps:
Source
Στη συγκεκριμένη ταινία, τη σκηνοθεσία της οποίας υπογράφει ο Γιώργος Κωνσταντίνου (αποτελεί την πρώτη σκηνοθετική απόπειρά του), ο Γιώργος Θεοδοσιάδης ως νέος και ανερχόμενος συνθέτης της εποχής υπογράφει 17 μουσικά θέματα, τα οποία κινούνται στον χώρο της τζαζ μουσικής, από τα πρώτα ίσως δείγματα του συγκεκριμένου μουσικού είδους στην Ελλάδα.
Translation
In this particular movie, the direction of which is signed by Giorgos Konstantinou (it is his first attempt as a director), Giorgos Theodosiades as a young and upcoming director of the era signs 17 musical themes, that move within jazz music, some of the first examples of this music kind in Greece.

"To Vima" is one of the major newspapers in Greece.--Lady 6thofAu (talk) 10:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold (t/a/c) 04:34, 29 September 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. Wizardman 04:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bordel ambiant

[edit]
Bordel ambiant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:N and WP:RS. No sources given. Nothing written about it online. The group is also borderline when it comes to notability. I'll nominate it later if I cannot find anything substantial on it.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LegoKontribsTalkM 04:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold (t/a/c) 04:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

William T. Russell

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
William T. Russell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I wanted to bring this here so that there can be a discussion. I'm not sure that Russell is notable, primarily if you look at WP:BIO1E. Grsztalk 04:32, 29 September 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. lifebaka++ 15:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Direct Access Archive

[edit]
Direct Access Archive (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Subject is regarding one of the lesser known CD/DVD image formats. Article does not have any encyclopedic content on the foramt (i.e. its influence, popularity, specification). Given we do not have articles on more well-known image formats such as .bin and .mdf, it is reasonable to conclude that this article was created to either promote the related application or remedy its vendor lock-in. Voidvector (talk) 23:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold (t/a/c) 04:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Teixeira

[edit]
Maria Teixeira (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article is in violation of WP:BIO1E. Media mentions do not equate to general notability. Lolwot (talk) 12:11, 24 September 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) 04:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus to delete. I should note that despite there not being consensus in this discussion, the band appears to meet WP:NM#Criteria for musicians and ensembles: "Contains at least one notable musician". This band contains three notable musicians. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lillies (Band)

[edit]
Lillies (Band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:NM. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 21:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disagree! It meets WP:NM #6, since the project was composed of members from the bands Lusch Cocteau Twins and Moose, all of them notable, since their articles have no deletion request. Because there are 3 bands involved, it would be time consuming to expand all their articles.

Fuhbär (talk) 10:49, 25 September 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) 04:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Concerning WP:RS: I mentioned the Interview of Miki_Berenyi in PME which is from this year. Also some english guy may consider some public library to find a listing of issues of The Spur". Or google for it and you will find a dozend other sources. My main reason to put this in wikipedia was, that I was not aware about that collaboration between the bands mentioned. Maybe it will save some time for somone else having the same prob.

Fuhbär (talk) 15:01, 29 September 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. Consensus is that the subject has received insufficient coverage to be notable. Lookunderneath's opinion, according to which we should take into account the perceived importance of the subject's work even though coverage of him is lacking, is in conflict with WP:N and is discounted.  Sandstein  10:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Gage

[edit]
Richard Gage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:BIO. Independent coverage of this person in reliable sources consists of trivial mentions and quotes, which is insufficient to establish notability. Hut 8.5 19:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In quote from NY Times, the quote isn't trivial if it's the only citation of an opposing point of view in attempting to achieve balance. Column inches is not the criterion. Lookunderneath (talk) 01:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)Comment moved from talk page Hut 8.5 06:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC) [reply]

The criterion for determining whether coverage is non-trivial is how much it tells us about the subject. Here it tells us that he's an architect from California, and he founded Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. That is not non-trivial coverage, and is even covered here. You haven't demonstrated the need for an encyclopedia article about this person. Hut 8.5 06:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So the NYT and the BBC see Gage as notable enough to interview and show to millions, but wikipedia does not? Who'd have guessed? Have you taken a look at how many interviews he's given? There are videos where congresspeople talk about 'AE911truth' because they have had so many people asking them to review the information. A google search of "architects and engineers for 9/11 truth" returns 34,700 . . . I guess that isn't enough. bov (talk) 19:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Being interviewed for a newspaper doesn't make you notable by Wikipedia standards (I think the NYT just quoted his press conference rather than interviewing him). Notability isn't determined by Google hits either, and if there is sourcing about Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth then the article should be about Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth rather than its founder (as I pointed out above we already have coverage of this group which mentions that Gage founded it). In order to establish notability we need sources which give non-trivial information about the subject per WP:N and we don't have it. Hut 8.5 19:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In Financial Times article, it is Richard Gage making the impression on reporter Peter Barker, not Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. As Barker commented, “While I have seen this footage countless times, it seems that I had clearly never understood what I was seeing.” Lookunderneath (talk) 12:31, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All we actually learn about Gage from that article is that he's from San Francisco and that he founded Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. This isn't significant coverage. Hut 8.5 13:18, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Gage EASILY falls within the wiki concept of "notable": 1) The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field. 2) The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. He is an international speaker and expert on the subject. This attempt at deletion is an obvious attack by someone/some group who simply disagrees with Richard Gage and/or "9/11 Truth". (this is prevalent and pervasive throughout wikipedia) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.208.85.42 (talk) 18:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"part of the enduring historical record" means they have "been written about, in depth, independently in multiple history books on that field, by historians". This hasn't happened. He didn't originate the 9/11 conspiracy theories. Hut 8.5 20:38, 28 September 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) 03:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a compelling story to tell about Richard Gage. It all has occurred in just two years. That no biographies have been written is unfortunate. The reasons for that deficiency are probably worthy for investigation and reporting as well. The story on Gage is along the following lines:

Richard Gage, a Bay Area architect, has become a prominent person in the International effort to find out what really happened at the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. In a span of less than two years, he has gone from hearing about the possibility that there may have been explosives planted in the buildings, to founding and leading an organization with nearly 3,000 petition signers, including almost 500 architects and engineers.

The organization, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (ae911truth.org), and Gage in particular, is the leading voice challenging the government’s explanations for the collapses of the three WTC high-rise buildings. Gage’s role in this undertaking has been remarkable in both investigative and communicative skills.

As lead investigator by an informal team of volunteer specialists, Gage has pieced together information into an increasingly sophisticated hypothesis as to what must have happened in the collapses of the three buildings. Or, to put it more precisely, to explain why the explanations given by NIST could not have happened as reported. These explanations are included in formal written submittals in response to the NIST calls for comments.

As lead communicator, Gage has worked tirelessly to fine tune his standard presentation to make it more understandable to the lay public. For the past year, Gage has been featured speaker every other weekend throughout the United States, and occasionally in Canada. The speech has been adapted to a multimedia presentation on DVD, with sales of the new 2008 version surpassing 1,000 copies within 3 weeks of its release for the 7th anniversary of September 11. Lookunderneath (talk) 11:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the fact that this version violates WP:NPOV, it is more than "unfortunate" that no-one has covered this person because Wikipedia guidelines demand that we only include people who have been covered in detail by sources. Hut 8.5 16:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Mr. Gage is also the author of the DVD "9/11: Blueprint for Truth - The Architecture of Destruction," which has a straight FIVE STAR series of reviews on Amazon.com, although it is not sold there. A Google search on "Richard Gage architect" gives over 100,000 hits. He is almost notable enough to list based upon his work as an architect, alone. Wowest (talk) 11:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Amazon reviews are not an indicator of notability, neither are Google hits. Hut 8.5 16:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here's how many American architects are listed on wikipedia whose notability is not questioned. Maybe we should start looking more closely at each of these. We can start with architect Ray Chi. 24.4.168.11 (talk) 17:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Most of the architects listed there either designed notable and significant structures or have received significant coverage in reliable sources. Gage has designed part of a high school and is now working on some office blocks and shops. Hut 8.5 17:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete only mentions of Gage in reliable sources such as the New York Times are trivial mentions of him. There really are not enough reliable sources to put together a biography on him. --Aude (talk) 17:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, thusfar, Lookunderneath, Wowest, bov (?), and 98.298.85.41, so far, want to keep it, and

Hut, Gtstricky, Rubin and Aude want to delete it, and 24.4.168.11 is kind of vague about his intentions? . I don't see much of a consensus, Hut. Wowest (talk) 06:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is not determined by counting people on each side. Hut 8.5 16:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was no consensus. Cirt (talk) 02:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wizard Sticks

[edit]
Wizard Sticks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The author has provided a couple of reliable sources for the basic practice of empty taping beer cans into sticks. But this set of rules is just something made up one day. - Sgroupace (talk) 03:29, 29 September 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. Cirt (talk) 02:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sonja Bernhardt

[edit]
Sonja Bernhardt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This woman has dumped her CV here. Is she notable? - Sgroupace (talk) 03:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete What's a CV? Regardless of that question, to the nom's question I say no: there's no demonstration of notability, and in all the third party sources, there's a blatant lack of significant coverage. Nyttend (talk) 05:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A CV is what we in the UK call what you in the US call a "resumé"...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. The publications that talk about Bernhardt seem to indicate some significance in the IT industry, though none of them are solely about her. The article format is terrible though. It needs to be completely rewritten so it is based more on the reliable sources rather than the self-published biography. There's a tiny bit of potential here. Bill (talk|contribs) 13:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

format tidied up some content removed to avoid 'dump' appearance, additional cited independent references added on articles focused on Sonja, other notability items added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonjabern (talk • contribs) 08:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Article has been reformatted and several supporting external references added. The issue of attracting girls and women into technology careers (where they remain under-represented despite many attempts to reverse this) has attracted a lot of interest around the world from governments and industry and Bernhardt has been very active and is well known in this field (and this is primarily what the entry is about). Perhaps some reference to this issue and its significance needs to be added. - Roarc (talk) 01:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep per the most recently added sources which appear to establish notability. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 08:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fish Information and Services

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Fish Information and Services (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:CORP also potential WP:SPAM, note previous deletion discussion was hijacked by proven sockpuppetry not enabling a fair discussion. Michellecrisp (talk) 03:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification of reason for renomination In the interests of fair discussion, I've been asked to clarify reasons for my renomination of this article, so soon after its initial nomination. This decision was not made lightly. The first deletion discussion was hijacked by proven sockpuppets as shown here WP:Suspected sock puppets/Spindoctor69. Whilst ignoring the sockpuppets in an assessment of votes, may not provide a clear cut consensus for deletion or keep, my concern is that the sockpuppets may have discouraged any fair discussion or contribution from others by sucking the life out of the discussion. Having said that, unfortunately distractive commentary has been repeated in this discussion. Michellecrisp (talk) 04:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. The organisation is verifiable and notable. It has been in existence for 13 years, has offices in several countries and 60+ employees. The article is abundantly referenced. Censure nominator for disruption to WP. --Gene_poole (talk) 03:14, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Notability aside, very few people have been "censured" for "disrupting Wikipedia" with their opinion on an article's notability. If Wikipedia did that, there'd be the risk that someone would not list something deletable because of this "censure". If you're going to make a claim about this calling for censure, at least point out this was only on AFD 3 days ago!. And with that, check out my vote. Chris Picone! 04:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Whilst the article is abundantly referenced they are not third party references and do not provide verifiability. I appreciate that Gene Poole has an opinion about the return of this to AfD so soon after the first listing, however the nominator is correct that the initial AfD included strong discussion by the prominent author (who clearly indicated a COI issue) and two other editors - all of whom have been identified and blocked as socks of each other. Towards that fact this AfD should continue its full measure to determine an accurate consensus.--VS talk 03:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There are at least 4 reliable third-party sources independent of FI&S already cited in the article, among them the US Library of Congress, an accredited institution of higher education and a peak national industry body. Please do not make deliberately misleading comments to the contrary. --Gene_poole (talk) 03:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please point out which ones you feel are those 4 here at this AfD and I will be happy to reconsider based on your evidence.--VS talk 03:34, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See above. Perhaps you should actually read the article. --Gene_poole (talk) 03:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being in business for 13 years, having 13 offices in seven countries and 60+ employees doesn't make it automatically notable and also agree with VirtualSteve that the article doesn't have verifiable third party sources. Bidgee (talk) 03:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There are at least 4 reliable third-party sources independent of FI&S already cited in the article, among them the US Library of Congress, an accredited institution of higher education and a peak national industry body. Please do not make deliberately misleading comments to the contrary. --Gene_poole (talk) 03:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please assume good faith which the comment "Please do not make deliberately misleading comments to the contrary." is not in good faith. Bidgee (talk) 03:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not continue to disrupt WP by making deliberately misleading comments in order to attempt to influence the outcome of an AfD. --Gene_poole (talk) 03:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In no way am I disrupting Wikipedia nor am I trying to mislead an AfD. Stop assuming bad faith. US Library of Congress doesn't even make it notable. Have you looked at the document? Bidgee (talk) 03:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you believe that the Library of Congress is an unreliable source, then the onus is on you to prove it. As it is, making such a ludicrous unfounded assertion seriously calls into question your ability to function successfully as an editor within the WP community. --Gene_poole (talk) 04:21, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're using this AfD to make some rather uncivil and bad faith remarks about editors, This AfD is for an article not editors and if you think that this is about being uncivil and assuming bad faith to editors who do not have the same view and use the AfD to be disruptive then you've picked the wrong forum to do so. Also I didn't say that Library of Congress isn't reliable! I said it fails to state the notability of the subject which is Fish Information and Services. Bidgee (talk) 04:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please limit your comments to the subject of this AfD nomination, and provide a justification for your assertion that the Library of Congress is not a reliable source. --Gene_poole (talk) 04:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from making uncivil and bad faith comments in the AfD. Read what I said, I never said that "Library of Congress is not a reliable source" I said it fails to "fails to state the notability of the subject". Bidgee (talk) 05:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop making unsubstantiated personal attacks against, and posting uncivil comments about other editors. Notability is established for the subject of this article by nature of the fact that multiple reliable independent third party sources - including government, academic and industry organisations - note its existence and support its first party assertions. --Gene_poole (talk) 05:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've made no personal attacks here nor have I posted uncivilly when trying to deal with a editor who is not assuming good faith and being uncivil. There is not "multiple reliable independent third party sources" within the article and the Government source fails to state notability of the subject (as what Matilda has said below) and any claims that I'm deliberately adding "misleading comments to the contrary" is a insult and is a unsubstantiated claim. Bidgee (talk) 05:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your repeated personal attacks and incivility, and repeated false assertions that cited third party sources do not exist, when they do exist, is evidence of disingenuity, stupidity or malice. Personally, I don't care which it is - but if you do it again, I will report your behaviour. --Gene_poole (talk) 05:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC) Comment I have struck through this personal attack rant and I request Bidgee to ignore it as best he can. I note for the record that I have blocked Gene for 31 hours at this time - that will give him enough time to return to this debate in a different frame of mind and hopefully enough time to consider that calling another editor names in this way is inappropriate - something for which he was warned against by another editor during the course of the debate.--VS talk 05:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[EC] Comment Thank you for your input Gene. Please note the reference referred to above relating to the US Library of Congress only provides for existence of this entity, it does not provide any assistance in relation to notability. Can you tell me/us the other 3 references that you consider are helpful so that we can reconsider our views?--VS talk 03:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First you say that there are no independent sources to establish verifiability, and vote to delete. Then when I point out that there are such sources, you ask me to point them out to you. In other words, you voted to delete the article using a justification which you assumed to be correct, without bothering to actually check the cited sources. Such behaviour is irresponsible, blatantly disrespectful to other editors, disruptive to WP, and generally inappropriate at quite a number of levels. --Gene_poole (talk) 04:21, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please read this and the first AfD closely Gene - I have actually gone through every reference and I do not find any that meet the requirements of Wikipedia - and which you say exist. However I do not think that I am only voice at Wikipedia, nor do I believe that I have some emperor like status to decree with absolute infallibility, and so I invite you to indicate to me how you see (now 3 left) particular references as being suitable. If you could please do that instead of attacking everyone that disagrees with you here then we would all be most willing to consider the validity of your comments.--VS talk 04:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not your mother. I've already told you what to look for. Go find them for yourself. I did. It took me all of 15 seconds. --Gene_poole (talk) 04:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having looked closely at your photo Gene - you are quite correct you are not my mother, and indeed I am relatively confident you are no-one's mother by proof of that same photo. I think we can all take it that you are unwilling to give detail of your other three references - and at least two of us have now read through the first one you gave and we do not see the claim of notability that you aspire to for this reference. Cheers.--VS talk 04:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. This debate was closed 3 days ago!. Editor should have participated in that discussion, and as nothing at all has changed on the subject, this appears to be an attempt to get a different result. Though I should assume good faith, so it's perfectly reasonable that the nominator just did not know of the last debate. Chris Picone! 04:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am fully aware of the previous recent discussion. However, it was hijacked and caused major distraction by proven sockpuppetry that attempted to influence any fair discussion. Michellecrisp (talk) 04:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I quickly caught my mistake and was about to strike through it then bad things happened to my net. Fixed. Chris Picone! 04:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well done Chris - nice to have you back on Wiki (changed as you say) by the way. Welcome back.--VS talk 04:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the website does not meet the notability criteria at WP:CORP or WP:WEB. The external sites included in the references are only passing mentions and do not meet the criterion that The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself - for example the library of Congress citation http://ncseonline.org/NLE/CRSreports/03Aug/RL30856.pdf Congressional Research Service - The Library of Congress states in realtion to this site

    Fish Info Service [A, F]. A Japanese-based information resource reporting on fishery, processing, and aquaculture industries world-wide, Fish Info Service offers a broad range of international news that is frequently updated at [http://www.fis.com/fis/worldnews/]. Although news headlines and brief stories are available on this site, access to the full text of news items requires a paid subscription.

    Fis.com is one of many sites they list and is given no more emphasis than many others. To my mind this reference falls within the exclusion of Trivial coverage, such as ... (3) a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site or (4) content descriptions in Internet directories or online stores. The other references are similar. I am very surprised that a business that has been around since 1995 could be so under-reported. If I look at the site, it would look to be important - fishing is a major industry and this may well be a major player in that industry. But if it were important then I would assume it would have references to support that notability - I have searched diligently and I can't find any.--Matilda talk 04:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - sigh... such a tedious waste of time. I confess I really just don't understand the deletionist mindset. I argued the case just a few days ago. It is incumbent on the current swarm of deletionists to carefully read and consider what was said by myself and others in the previous AfD, and not just dismiss those positions because some else was muddying the water. There are good reasons why it is difficult with sites of this type to establish noteabilty. I am satisfied, nonetheless that the site is an important player in the fishing industry, and have informally confirmed that with fisheries professionals I am in touch with. After the previous kerfuffle I would have thought the article would have been allowed, at least, a decent period of grace to see if something more acceptable turns up. Ah well... deletionists must have their way. In the meantime we could all have jointly have produced at least a couple of decent new articles with all the energy that has gone into this. Go ahead, waste even more energy, and then delete it. Eventually it will be reinstated, and all this energy will have been a complete waste. Anyway, I'm out of here. --Geronimo20 (talk) 06:50, 29 September 2008 (UTC) (reinstated, since sockpuppet seems under control)[reply]
  • Delete lack of non-trivial independent sources, WP:COI, spam, and sockpuppetry - a combination almost invariably absent where subjects are genuinely notable. Guy (Help!) 11:50, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close as disruptive. The previous AfD closed just three days ago. This is POINTy and out of process. A completely uncalled for AfD. Jim Miller See me | Touch me 17:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Close as disruptive per Jim Miller - I didn't have time to weigh-in on the 1st AFD but it would have been Keep as well. What concerns me as a WP editor is the precedent this AFD would set. An editor doesn't like the No Consensus or Keep decision on an AFD closed days before so they just re-nominate it hoping that the deletes will outnumber the keeps the next time. It's just as disrupting as blatant canvassing because it forces all those who weighed-in as keeps on the previous AFD to do so again--not a productive use of an editor's time. Per Geronimo20, we need to find ways to keep WP content, not ways to delete it.--Mike Cline (talk) 19:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How is this AfD disruptive? The last AfD was disrupted by a proven sock puppet which affected the out come of the last AfD. If there had been no sock puppet then I don't think there would have been another AfD as the out come would have been different (whether if it was keep or delete). Michellecrisp is a well respected editor in the Wikipedia community and I'm sure she would have thought hard about this before relisting on valid grounds. Bidgee (talk) 20:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Bidgee, agreed. Renominating after a short period of time is of course not normal practice. However, my renomination was based on the fact that proven sockpuppetry did not enable fair discussion. Michellecrisp (talk) 00:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - could you please clarify on what grounds you would keep the article, AfD process is not grounds to keep usually, and the process has been disrupted by sockpuppetry and incivility. For clarity - I note that delete !votes were posted on the 1st AfD by myself, Euryalus, Stifle, Michelle Crisp and Virtual Steve. Keep !votes were posted by Geronimo 20, DGG, Jjamison, plus a weak keep by Fiddle Faddle, keep by author (*2 - who was later blocked for sockpuppetry), plus a keep by Gene Poole (who suggested that I was single purpose account and the 1st nomination was spurious and the 2nd nominator should be censured and who has since been blocked for one month for abusing other editors during this debate.) Few of the keep !voters have actually addressed the notability guidelines - Geronimo20 has: he is basing his opinion on it is difficult with sites of this type to establish noteabilty. I am satisfied, nonetheless that the site is an important player in the fishing industry, and have informally confirmed that with fisheries professionals I am in touch with. I personally remain unsatisfied and have posted my views above with reference to the guidelines.--Matilda talk 21:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - you must have read what was actually said in the last AfD Matilda, particularly since you were the nominator. So I'm disappointed you choose to misrepresent my position like that. What I also said was: "This issue simply comes down to whether or not a suitable source, external to the company, can be found... The organisation is known as FIS, and FIS, unfortunately, is an acronym widely used for other purposes. Google shows over 20 million hits. This makes its very difficult to filter out references for the FIS we are after. Also, the site seems to get most of its traffic from non English speaking areas. The other difficulty is that this is a specialist site, aimed at managers in the seafood industry. It is a tool that insiders know about, rather than a site that is the subject of interest in the general media. What turned me round to thinking the site is notable was examining the link for "User comments" which can be found on the left sidebar of the main page of FIS, towards the bottom. If you actually check these organisations out, to see if they exist as notable companies, together with the names of their claimed managers, then for the most part they check out. Clearly FIS could not get away with these claims if they are false. It was this fact that decided me, some time ago, that the company was indeed notable. However, this somewhat indirect evidence is not in a form that can be cited in Wikipedia. So my position is that the company is notable, but there remains the task of finding an appropriate supporting citation." DGG added: "... even clearly notable information services are difficult to get information on. The supply information, but nobody thinks to write about them".
Discounting Spindoctor and his sockpuppets, there were three keeps and a weak keep, against four deletes (Euryalus, Stifle, Michellecrisp and VS). Anyway, more time down the drain. Like you Matilda, I'm thoroughly jaded with this (particularly after trying to jolly Spindoctor along!)--Geronimo20 (talk) 01:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did indeed read what you said in the last AfD - my point was not to requote all your comments. I apologise if you think I have misrepresented you position - I quoted what I saw as the essence of your comments this time around. I am delighted that you have chosen to repost your comments from the last debate but ... While I respect that you have more of a sense of what might or might not be important to the fishing industry, there are no reliable sources to support your view. I have not merely googled fis.com, but googled and other searches within sites such as the New York Times (hence my one find from that journal last time) and also in other permutations including the CEO's name to try and bring things up. Not the easiest search target for sure, but one of the reasons is I believe there isn't anything there. If there had been I think Spindoctor69 would have provided it. --Matilda talk 02:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • One source I found a review of fishing trade publications in the Puget Sound Business Journal (Seattle) which, on the second page, devotes 3 or 4 paras to the subject of this article. I think that's one WP:RS MadScot (talk) 01:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I agree that is a useful reliable source with content that could be usefully added to the article. I appreciate I am now a little bit jaded with the whole debate but ... I am not sure actually if the reliable source confirms notability to either WP:WEB or WP:CORP standards - it is not significant coverage in more than one source - we need a couple of sources. I note that the source provided states FIS so far has had only a few profitable months, but added that his company is "very close to achieving profitability." To me lack of profitability is kind of an indicator of lack of notability - not entirely fair and outside the guideline but ... --Matilda talk 01:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Profitability But if that were a criteria then half the British motor industry entries could be got rid of, and I don't think the BBC has ever made money either ;-) MadScot (talk) 01:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC) (somewhat tongue in cheek)[reply]
Hmmm - I realise that is not part of the guideline, but unlike the BBC this is a for-profit company and unlike the British motor industry which was profitable once, this is yet to be profitable. It isn't a defining criterion but it makes it a little less interesting - any suburban garage might do better. --Matilda talk 01:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are talking about an article which is 6 years old! Some of this information shows notability, but the part about profits was written in the post-dot-com bubble era. Of course it wasn´t making profits then, not many people were. But if it has survived for 6 years then surely it must have made profts since! I vote to keep this article, it´s a useful resource within the market and is interesting reading. There is no real reason to delete it, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and somthing this big within a market is worthy of an article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.246.82.69 (talk) 02:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC) — 190.246.82.69 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 190.246.82.69 has been identified (and now blocked) as a sock of User:Spindoctor69, the creator of the article. That the creator used sock puppets in a misguided attempt to support it should be irrelevant here, but !votes, if any, by this editor should be disregarded as probable COI. --Abd (talk) 15:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. None of the references supports notability:
    alexa.com. Directory entry only.
    ZoomInfo. Contact information only.
    LinkedIn. LinkedIn entry.
    About Us. Self-provided directory entry.
    Puget Sound Business Journal. Subject mentioned on second page in passing, more a comment on its new owner's business plan.
    CIFT. Mentioned in a directory of web resources.
    alexa.com. Traffic graph, indicating not in top 100,000 sites measured.
    ffa.int. What appears to be a self-provided description in a directory.
    BC Sardines. An "other links" reference without comment from an industry association.
    Congressional Research Service - The Library of Congress. A single paragraph blurb in a 21-page summary of online information sources relating to fisheries, aquaculture, and marine mammals.
    [71]. Describes as a "useful website" with a one-paragraph blurb, in a list of 40 or so blurbs on various industry topics (from 2004).
    spc.int mitc.com. A short paragraph captioned "New website" in a newsletter comprised primarily of substantive articles.
    Projections of Future Bristol Bay Salmon Prices. Mentioned once as a source of wholesale prices in a 170-page article.
    fis.com. Own website.
    fis.com. Own website.

Nothing in the article text leads me to an inference of notability. The fact that despite obvious attempts, these were the best references available leads me to believe that no claim of notability is likely to be supportable. Bongomatic (talk) 07:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as insignificant, per Bongomatic's research above. AlexTiefling (talk) 08:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentRegardless of the notability of the subject, this discussion is really about whether or not the first AfD was closed properly - that is discounting the susupected sockpuppet votes. That discussion (regarding the propriety of the original close) belongs at DRV, not back here at AfD. If the original closing admin has already discounted the socks when determining that there was no consesnsus, then the default action is to keep and we should not be having this discussion. If the socks were not taken into account when reaching that determination, then this is a debate about the closing and is properly handled at DRV. Either way, without some kind of intervening act, a second AfD after three days is inappropriate. Jim Miller See me | Touch me 16:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found an article which has a lot of info on the company. By the looks of things here, most of you will find a reason to shun this but i´ll add it anyway. - [72] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.246.82.69 (talk) 02:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This source establishes notability! That´s what this discussion is about! don´t delete my contributions please. This comment was added by 190.246.82.69, identified (and now blocked) as a sock of User:Spindoctor69, the creator of the article. That the creator used sock puppets in a misguided attempt to support it should be irrelevant here. --Abd (talk) 15:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep As I said last time, importance in the industry is demonstrated, though the sources could be better. However, even clearly notable information services are difficult to get information on. The supply information, but nobody thinks to write about them--this problem appears with a great many organisations, services, and businesses in the information sector, and surfaces with many computer industry and publishing industry related articles. Those of us involved professionally with providing or organizing information, tend to do so for others, and don't write much about ourselves. The article seems descriptive to me, not like an advertisement, and the sources show the importance. Whether they meet formal guidelines is secondary--the guidelines are guidelines intended to be flexible with exceptions, there';s no serious question that the actual key policy can be met, that the information can be verified. If something is clearly the major player in an important human activity, and we can get information, that's good reason enough for an article DGG (talk) 02:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, spam. Stifle (talk) 14:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stifle, there is plenty of room for disagreement as to the technical notability of this site (i.e., the sourcing for notability is marginal if we simply read WP:NOTE literally). Further, the article may have been created by an editor with a COI, motivated to publicize it. But that is irrelevant to its notability, and it doesn't make the article, itself, into spam, and the article has been massively edited to remove promotional text from it. Calling the article "spam" says nothing about the article itself, or the notability of the topic, and massively disregards the opinions of other established editors that have been expressed here. I'd urge the closer to disregard a !vote based on "spam," it's a spurious argument, possibly based on bias from the previous AfD, where COI issues were prominent. --Abd (talk) 15:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The significance of Google Scholar is that scholars are using FIS as a source they consider sufficiently reliable to reference in papers or other publications. Given that I've attempted to defend articles on topics with *no* Google Scholar citations, and those articles were marginal (i.e., AfD could have gone either way), 20 hits is significant. It's useless to debate if that is "many." It's correct that this doesn't in itself establish notability, it's simply another weight to put on the scale. --Abd (talk) 18:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:N, notability is not a matter of importance but I have added a citation supporting the position of the site as the world's largest online provider of fishery information. Your contention that the topic is not notable is clearly mistaken. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For reference, CW added a reference to an article in the English on-line service of People's Daily, specifically about FIS, and calling it the "World largest fish-related information center."[73] --Abd (talk) 15:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 01:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Shakespeare

[edit]
Women in Shakespeare (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Junior high school term paper, looks like. Neutralitytalk 03:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and fix all the above criticisms apply but the topic is notable enough and substantial third party sources exist on the topic. Nick Connolly (talk) 03:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment I've done a few edits.Nick Connolly (talk) 02:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yes valid topic for Wikipedia but not this high school term paper. It would be much easier to just wipe the slate clean and start over. Whispering 03:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete as G12 Copyvio. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ontological Status of Essence

[edit]
Ontological Status of Essence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A large lump of original research. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 02:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, when you see a large piece of text with few or no wikilinks, there is a *high* chance it's been copy/pasted from elsewhere, a quick Google check on a sentence or two usually gets you confirmation. An article such as this is deletable on sight. See CSD G12 for the speedy deletion criteria for copyvios. Equendil Talk 10:56, 29 September 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.

Post-closure comment: The above G12 suggestions and the subsequent deletion seems to have been in error, as newadvent.org/cathen/ is a verbatim reproduction of the Catholic Encyclopedia, a Public Domain source. There still seems to be consensus for deleting, though, given the other issues. --Paul_012 (talk) 04:38, 29 September 2023 (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. Cirt (talk) 02:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tragedy (event)

[edit]
Tragedy (event) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Dicdef Neutralitytalk 02:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep per WP:DEMOLISH. This page is only hours old and is under construction. Also, per WP:DPC, pages like this should not be proposed for deletion while under construction. The nom would be doing society a favor by withdrawing now and proposing for deletion again in a week if the page has not improved. Shaliya waya (talk) 06:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note that each of WP:DEMOLISH and WP:DPC is one person's essay, not an official policy or guideline. They're food for thought, but in this case there's no sign that the article was meant to be more than a dictionary definition. The hatnote shows that the author knows of the more general treatment of tragedy already written. In any event, there are five days (a) for the author to reassure us as to his/her intentions for the article and/or (b) to expand the article so that the discussion becomes moot. —Largo Plazo (talk) 08:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is moot already. The article has been modestly improved. Sure, it may be a stub, but I do not see how it can be called a dicdef anymore without calling thousands of other stubs dicdefs. Deleting this page could start a new trend, in which stubs are deleted on the basis they are dicdefs, and are no longer tolerated. Shaliya waya (talk) 11:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:ONLYESSAY before you discount these like that. Shaliya waya (talk) 18:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- I don't see how this can ever be more than a dicdef. Reyk YO! 08:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. I don't see how that would end up more than a dicdef either, but I'll give the benefit of the doubt and give it a few days before I swing either way. Equendil Talk 10:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC) Ok, still doesn't look anywhere close to something encyclopedic, so Delete. Equendil Talk 18:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a dicdef, and not even an accurate one. Loss of life is not intrinsic to the concept of real-life tragedy. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: is it just me, or does this article consist only of a dictionary definition? Wiktionary is the place for that; Wikipedia is not. Cliff smith talk 17:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It is not proper Wikipedia etiquette to propose a page for deletion while it is under construction. My plans are for this to be a serious article, not just a dicdef. I started it out that way, but isn't that how everything starts? I know WP:DEMOLISH is just an essay (see WP:ONLYESSAY), but it is an important one. Articles need to be given more than just a few minutes to get up to par. I have already added a little more, with references, to this one. As I am adding more here (with book-based references), it is only a matter of time before the cases made by all the "deletes" here will crumble. Therefore, it would be in good faith for the nom to withdraw the nomination him/herself and give this a chance. Over the next few days, I will be busy at work, but once I get a major project completed there, I am planning to write more on human responses to tragedy, and so on. This is not something that is done in one day, let alone a few minutes. Shaliya waya (talk) 18:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wouldn't say that's how everything starts. There isn't any reason to start an article from scratch in the public area before having drafted a decent stub somewhere else: Notepad, a word processor, a scratch page in your user namespace. There isn't any advantage to staking out an article before you're ready; by the same token, no harm is really done if an article is deleted by reason of not being ready, because it's effortless to recreate it when your content is ready. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't just a dicdef anymore. I have added some references and a little more content already. I am planning on a new section in the coming days, though I will be very busy for the next few days and may not be able to get to the computer at all. But I have more coming, and I wanted to welcome others to work on the article, not to delete it. Shaliya waya (talk) 22:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is still just a definition, in my opinion. A definition with examples, but dictionaries do give examples. —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per WP:DICDEF. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Kind of sad, but this article is indeed nothing more than a dictionary definition with personal observations. From the article, one would learn that "A tragedy is an event resulting in the loss of one or more lives" (what about an event that turns someone into a paraplegic?); that "A death is generally viewed as tragic if the victim(s) have died of unnatural causes, mostly if the death is accidental, or if inflicted as a result of human wrongdoing." (does that cover terminal illness?); "Events that are often classified as tragedies include disasters (such as kidnappings, plane crashes, and murders)" (no comment); and "'Tragedy' is also used by some to refer to a disappointment." If we need an article to explain the essence of tragedy, this isn't it. Mandsford (talk) 13:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment User:Largo Plazo commented on the discussion page of this article that the topic may be covered under grief. Therefore, maybe merging might be a suitable alternative, if all the information here is contained under "grief." Regardless, when merging is the solution, deleting followed by redirecting is not. Shaliya waya (talk) 18:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notice to the closing admin. I know there are so many deletes, and no one else has felt this is anything beyond a dicdef. I know you will likely see the numerous deletes, and therefore automatically say the article should be deleted. BUT THINK AGAIN.
The lone case that all those supporting delete have made just about is dicdef. Already, this article has a few paragraphs and several good references. This is just the tip of the iceberg for what is to come.
Truth is, you cannot call that a dicdef. We have a term for what this is: a STUB. Deleting this is justification for deleting many other stubs. And this stub is better and has more references than so many others.
Also, it would be extremely unfair not to give this page a chance, given the time and thoughts it takes to make a good article. So many good articles started out with just one line, which is what it had when the afd was started. Now it has a few paragraphs. The only thing it doesn't have are comments on this discussion since then, recognizing that.
If you do delete this page, I will promptly take action to have it restored, so therefore, it would be in everyone's best interest not to. Shaliya waya (talk) 04:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a threat. What I am describing is completely within my rights. Wikipedia has a process called Deletion Review, where this can be taken if need be. Most requests like this are honored there, so what I am saying is deleting this page will only delay its improvements. Shaliya waya (talk) 11:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not remotely convinced that this page has any potential to be encyclopedic. I can't imagine what sources could be produced to save this from being a (biased) dictionary definition. Nothing that's appeared there so far gives any indication that there's a coherent, verifiable topic to write about. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The remark "... it would be in everyone's best interest not to" implies that there will be consequences adverse to everyone's interests. It does sound like a possible threat. —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As far as improvements go, I would observe that the nature of tragedy has been written about by authors with far more talent than anybody, myself included, in this discussion, and perhaps that this can be userfied while the author plumbs a lot deeper than a surface description. Benjamin Franklin observed that "Life's tragedy is that we get old too soon, and wise too late." But I would caution that, although deferring to persons more skilled than ourselves is the start of a better article, stringing together a lot of great quotes won't necessarily work. Original synthesis is not much better than original research. Good luck on the request for deletion review. Mandsford (talk) 17:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. G11 - promotional of the subject Tony Fox (arf!) 20:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rich Halvorson

[edit]
Rich Halvorson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:BIO. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keith saltojanes

[edit]
Keith saltojanes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable Neutralitytalk 02:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like a job for "not yet notable"! DS (talk) 03:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Wartburg College. Please note, however, that for history preservation reasons we cannot delete the merged page; it must be redirected. Hersfold (t/a/c) 02:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outfly

[edit]
Outfly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Declined speedy. Fails WP:N. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:49, 29 September 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 consensus is that this fails to meet wikipedia requirements, namely WP:BIO. Ty 00:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Mondro

[edit]
Anne Mondro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Appears to fail WP:BIO. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article is accurate and does following the criteria for a wikipedia article. It is on a relevant contemporary American artist and has ties with SNAG (society of north american goldsmiths) which is also an article on wikipedia. I have included multiple sources and a legally obtained photo from the artist for the article. I do not understand why this is warranting a deletion nomination, I think it is unfair and the article should be kept.Aeb234 (talk) 03:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bowel of Chiley

[edit]
Bowel of Chiley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Demo. Per WP:MUSIC, not notable without substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. None provided, none found. Mdsummermsw (talk) 19:59, 24 September 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 02:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted by User:Kevin, (CSD G4: Recreation of a page which was deleted per a deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phaedra (R&B Songstress)). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phaedra Butler

[edit]
Phaedra Butler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Originally nominated for PROD, but I contested as a shade too borderline to just PROD off. Original nominator's statement was, "Borderline non-notable musician; see WP:MUSIC". SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete. blatant misinformation. Olympic athlete without a single google hit? Hoaxalicious! TravellingCari 03:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elijah Hauaru

[edit]
Elijah Hauaru (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Grand assertion of notability, but Google comes up empty when it comes to backing it up. Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 01:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete. as copyvio Cirt (talk) 01:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CleverTrack

[edit]
CleverTrack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable software. BJTalk 01:21, 29 September 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 Redirected Wasn't aware of the main list, but then again, I don't give a rip abut Survivor. NAC.

List of Survivor: Gabon Contestants

[edit]
List of Survivor: Gabon Contestants (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

List of mostly non-notable people.Just being on Survivor isn't inherent notability. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 01:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Withdrawn per sources found. Schuym1 (talk) 02:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abraham (film)

[edit]
Abraham (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I can't find any reliable sources that show this television movie's notability. Schuym1 (talk) 00:34, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did a search at the Emmy website[75]. Specifying "Abraham" as program name and 1994 as the year confirms that the movie was nominated for Primitime Emmys in 3 categories: OUTSTANDING INDIVIDUAL ACHIEVEMENT IN COSTUME DESIGN FOR A miniseries or a special - 1994, OUTSTANDING INDIVIDUAL ACHIEVEMENT IN HAIRSTYLING FOR A miniseries or a special - 1994, OUTSTANDING INDIVIDUAL ACHIEVEMENT IN MAKEUP for a miniseries or a special - 1994. Nsk92 (talk) 01:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't agree that it shows notability since it was only nominated. Schuym1 (talk) 01:59, 29 September 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. Stifle (talk) 09:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sami Zeidan

[edit]
Sami Zeidan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unnotable news journalist with no reliable sources to pass WP:V. There doesn't seem to be much coverage on her beyond what she covers herself. Tavix (talk) 01:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 17:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tavix (talk) 00:20, 29 September 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. Consensus seems to be that there are enough sources to justify notability and thus inclusion. Hersfold (t/a/c) 01:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Rosanne States

[edit]
Jennifer Rosanne States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unnotable 3 year old child that fails WP:1E and WP:NOTNEWS. Tavix (talk) 00:17, 29 September 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. henrik•talk 21:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Niermann

[edit]
Kenneth Niermann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Prod and prod-2 removed without comment by IP address. Prod 1 stated "Does not meet any criteria for Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Several papers in a very specific area of medicine; has not made a greater impact in his field than your average academic physician. Less than 10 relevant Google hits. Probably a vanity page, as well." Prod-2 stated "still only a resident." Delete. - IceCreamAntisocial (talk) 00:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS: prod and prod2 were removed by an IP tracing back to Vanderbilt University. --Crusio (talk) 15:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The usual convention is that the lead author is the last in the list. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, in my experience the Principal Investigator typically goes last, while the lead author goes first (I've noticed some disciplines that the communicating author has a much larger importance than in mine, and is often neither first nor last). Pete.Hurd (talk) 07:09, 30 September 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2008_September_29&oldid=1081071610"