Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 December 18

< December 17	December 19 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Single + desperate

Can't find anything on Google or in the news, the latter using the lead actor's name, no assertion of notability, fails WP:NF. — neuro^(talk) 23:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:40, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as title and lack of informations with the article make searches for informations impossible. Googling "Single + desperate" brings up thousands of love match ads, but nothing about a film. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:06, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Schmidt Tavix (talk) 00:17, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Godzilla vs. Megalon. MBisanz ^talk 01:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Megalon

This character does not establish notability independent of Godzilla vs. Megalon through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 23:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: To Godzilla vs. Megalon, (pity there's no "list of Godzilla monsters", or is there?) this article is entirely made up of Original Research, geddit? That means if you "trimmed" all the Original Research you'd have nothing but one line left, probably something like; "Megalon (メガロ, Megaro?) is a fictional kaiju (giant monster) featured in the 1973 Japanese tokusatsu film Godzilla vs. Megalon, the thirteenth Godzilla film produced by Toho. A beetle-like arthropod, Megalon is the primary antagonist of the film." Also if it's kept it'll have to lose a picture, two fair use images on an article this small is too many, especially when one of the pics displays the subject so well. Ryan4314 (talk) 07:53, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Godzilla characters as there is no independent notability outside the series. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge" with Godzilla vs. Megalon. You won't believe this, but this is my all-time favourite movie. That being said, Megalon does not require his own article -- the character has no notability beyond that single film. Ecoleetage (talk) 22:40, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect as above, whichever is more appropriate. There's no real world notability asserted here. Cheers, CP 04:51, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 19:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sebastian Petruş

Article about non-notable footballer who has not yet played in a fully professional league; fails WP:ATHLETE Jogurney (talk) 23:03, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related page moves. Jogurney (talk) 23:06, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. According to the article, he has only played for the reserve team of a Romanian first division club. As it stands at the moment, he fails WP:ATHLETE so delete this article for now but recreate it if and when he gets a first team appearance under his belt. Bettia (rawr!) 12:28, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 17:15, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Govvy (talk) 18:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Subject fails WP:ATHLETE. Sharveet (talk) 17:33, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

J4jumpy

I originally speedied it as advertising back when it had no refs besides its own site. That was removed, so I prodded it as advertising. That was also removed, so here it is...as advertising. Graymornings_(talk) 22:39, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G11 still pretty blatant. Just because a speedy was removed doesn't mean it's not speediable anyway. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was G12 Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Story of Toys R Us and Build A Bear Workshop

Article has previously been deleted by prod but recreated. This is a made up story that is an "idea for a TV special".[1] Completely non-notable. Somno (talk) 22:35, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Made-up misinformation. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Happy ^Holidays 01:21, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sickology 101: The Study of Being Sick

Unsourced blurb about an upcoming album. "Not much has been confirmed on the album, but a few names have been dropped as possible features". Right. Crystal time. ~~SIS~~ 22:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Not Much has been confirmed on the album" pretty much sums it up. Better smash a crystal over the article. Tavix (talk) 22:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now, with no prejudice against recreation when the album has been more widely publicized. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yup, WP:Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. —Largo Plazo (talk) 23:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:CRYSTAL. Schuym1 (talk) 00:08, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:46, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tech N9ne. The single sentence in that article sufficiently covers what's known.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too many WP:CRYSTAL problems and fails notability and WP:MUSIC 101. JBsupreme (talk) 05:42, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete non- noticable and basically its just a piece of garbage, plus WP:Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.--Pookeo9 (talk) 16:40, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 combination of inclement weather and withdrawn nomination. Non-admin closure. MuZemike (talk) 03:04, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Google Browser Sync

Article about a discontinued Firefox extension that makes no claim of notability and is unsourced. (prod was removed)--Jmundo (talk) 21:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an unnotable Firefox extension. There are a couple of sources, but nothing to prove notability. Tavix (talk) 22:48, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't show notability per WP:NOTABILITY. Schuym1 (talk) 00:12, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Vote changed to keep: per Icewedge. Schuym1 (talk) 23:54, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep

It makes no difference that the extension was discontinued - Per WP:NOTE, notability is not temporary.
The article is unsourced, but myriad WP:RS are available for the topic.
The lack of an assertion of notability, given the availability of sources that are so plainly tied to the topic, is grounds for a cleanup request, not deletion.

MrZaius^talk 02:00, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of the sources are blogs and "how to install" instructions. Blogs and discussion boards are not WP:reliable. --Jmundo (talk) 03:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found several sources,

Blackwell, Laura (August 1, 2006). "Download This: Sync Firefox Bookmarks, Build Personal Podcasts". PC World.
Perez, Juan (June 08, 2006). "Google Develops Browser Sync Tool for Firefox". Computer World.
Vaughan-Nichols, Steven (June 9, 2006). "First Impressions of Google Browser Sync". eWEEK.

And the article is in pretty good shape. Icewedge (talk) 04:08, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The sources you provides are blogs. If we have to resort to blogs to establish "notability," then there probably isn't any.--Jmundo (talk) 05:04, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are articles hosted on reputable websites written by staff writers, they are reliable sources, whether or not they are denoted as 'blogs' is irrelevant. While this is not a BLP, WP:BLP says that "Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs" and that these are reliable sources as long as "the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control", qualifications which all of the articles I cited meet. Icewedge (talk) 05:14, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, blogs are not a reliable sources. A blog or "interactive column" is "usually maintained by an individual with regular entries of commentary". From WP:RELY: "News reporting is distinct from opinion pieces. Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact". --Jmundo (talk) 05:36, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am pretty sure that staff writers from major technology news sources are reliable. They are going to be reliable whether or not the boss man has told the journalist to write a traditional news article or assigned the writer to create a 'blog' to exploit the power of web 2.0. Also, what are book reviews if not opinion and yet we allow them in articles all the time. Icewedge (talk) 05:58, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs are acceptable sources in some cases. See WP:SELFPUB: the requirement is that the blog is written by an expert in the subject who has been published in a reliable source. Which the blog in question was. Note that the 2nd and 3rd articles are _not_ blogs.

Besides, all we need to cite from these articles is their author's opinion: the fact that authors for these notable publications felt that this was important software makes it notable. The relevant facts can be sourced from google's pages. JulesH (talk) 20:54, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Anything up on google Labs is probably notable--certainly so if it's there for two years, and pcworld and computerworld and eWeek are RSs. DGG (talk) 14:54, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Icewedge. JulesH (talk) 20:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I withdraw the nomination to delete, sources seem to establish notability. I think that the policies about the use of blogs to establish notability are due for a makeover, but this is not the place to discuss that.--Jmundo (talk) 06:04, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Intestinal bleeding

The result was Speedy deleted per WP:CSD#G12. Sherool (talk) 22:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

housekeeping John Collier (talk) 21:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May be a copyvio. Probably can be {{Db-g12}}'d.—RJH (talk) 21:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
G12 per above, so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Productivity game

unremarkable article John Collier (talk) 21:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 21:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That rationale has no basis in Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Please provide a proper rationale that is based upon our policies and guidelines. Uncle G (talk) 21:51, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sourecs, original research, neologism, advert. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think that the nominator said "unremarkable" when he meant not notable. English's rich lode of synonyms contains many pitfalls. But this article surely is non-notable, and moreover is about some goo-goo consultant's buzzword wannabe jargon, being about video games that are designed to increase employee productivity and get real work done through the playing of a game. This seems likely promotional in intent. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please Do Not Delete - (from the Rosss2009 - the original poster) - this is not meant to be promotional, an advertisement or consultant jargon. There are a set of games that are used for work that are known by this name. This is a category within Serious Games. Thank you for considering this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosss2009 (talk • contribs) 20:35, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— Rosss2009 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 19:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2009 in music

If ever there was an article that breaks WP:CRYSTAL and WP:V in so many ways, this is it. A scan of the refs - particularly ones for releases with no exact date - shows blog entries (unreliable sources) and entries such as "album being worked on, hopefully released soon". One ref I saw is even dated 2007 suggesting a release by the end of that year. WP:NOT#NEWS also applies. Ros0709 (talk) 21:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea how to properly make Wikipedia talk page edits, so perhaps someone can correct my formatting if this is all wrong, but I disagree with the above. It certainly seems that some of the entries on this article are unverifiable, wrong, etc. and should be deleted. To say the entire article should disappear, though? That's a bit much. I've actually been using the "200[x] in Music" page to plan music purchases for about two years now, and haven't had a single problem with innaccurate information (In fact...if this page disappears, I will become an ex-user of Wikipedia, as this is the only thing I come for.) Obviously, there is some ability for us to reasonably list future releases of music. CDs don't just appear out of nowhere...their release dates are planned, promoted, and scheduled. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.240.152.5 (talk) 21:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because I'm certain that at least some of this can be sourced reliably. The content on 2009 in country music can all be sourced verifiably, at least, so why not for all genres? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WTF? 2008 is almost over, and there's no reason to delete this article. Alex (talk) 21:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Certainly there's sources out there for something that begins in just 13 days. Umbralcorax (talk) 22:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball Keep Why delete it now when 2009 is only 3 weeks away and we would have to recreate it again. Most of the material on the list is confirmed to happen (although I haven't checked everything personally), so WP:CRYSTAL really doesn't apply. Tavix (talk) 22:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per above comments. — ^`CRAZY`(lN)`SANE^` 08:46, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just strated checking more thoroughly and removing unverifiable content. Admittedly from starting at the end where the content is likely more dubious, but so far 16 of the 17 refs were invalid and removed. The article concept is not at dispute: when something of note happens in 2009 then add it, but this is all speculation and nonsense. Ros0709 (talk) 09:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, I've checked 2nd quarter forwards and virtually nothing was adequately referenced (2 remain). Far more worrying, I've also checked January (which should be trivial to reference now) and more than half the refs were invalid. This whole article is hugely problematic. Empty it and start again!
Delete. There is no need for speculation just yet. Elm-39 (talk) 13:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:CRYSTAL doesn't apply to sourced speculation, which this is. Meticulously sourced, in fact. JulesH (talk) 13:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As noted above, virtually none of the refs checked so far stands up to scrutiny. Ros0709 (talk) 14:06, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Two weeks yesterday (as I write) is New Year's Day 2009. So why delete the page for the music of next year? DitzyNizzy (aka Jess) (talk) 14:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the reasons given in the nomination. Ros0709 (talk) 15:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep it's here in two weeks - why bother deleting? Just strip out the rumours and fancruft and keep what's left as a stub. It'll be a stub for a fortnight OH NOES ZOMG !!!11!!! etc. what's the fuss? Totnesmartin (talk) 22:16, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep; I totally agree that deleting it now would be silly. And it would turn a few users away from this site to boot. 96.246.232.202 (talk) 03:49, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 2009 is in less than two weeks. What's the harm? Sam ^Blab 16:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:COMMONSENSE among other things. It doesn't make much sense to delete the article just to bring it back in a few days. WP:CRYSTAL doesn't appear to be a serious problem. The sources are not WP:RS quality, but they don't appear to be dubious either. This is a cleanup job. 2008 in music developed just like this. If 2008 is any guide, we'll have historic facts by the first week in January. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 19:21, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy (band)

The article claims that the group was popular during the 1990s but does not provide any reliable citations to support that, aside from a link to their MySpace webpage. It is difficult to search for "Sandy" using google, and I suspect that it may be an order of magnitude more difficult based on their origins even though they are now based out of Los Angeles, California. As the article stands it fails WP:MUSIC and I cannot find any evidence anywhere that it ever will pass. Delete. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 20:43, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are NO SOURCES AT ALL to support this article. The last link is dead, leaving myspace and a fansite? Uh, nope! Thank you! JBsupreme (talk) 15:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: MySpace artist, non-notable WP:MUSIC. JamesBurns (talk) 04:32, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article fails to establish notability per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 20:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't show notability per WP:MUSIC. Schuym1 (talk) 20:52, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Like... The Beatles

No assertion of notability. Doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO. The only source is the band's own website. SilkTork *^YES! 20:35, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:MUSIC. HeureusementIci (talk) 20:43, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Smells like self-promotion. And the editor who created the article seems to also have a conflict of interest (per his comments on the article talk-page). indopug (talk) 21:40, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 20:40, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Per WP:SNOW - nominator presented the only "delete" rationale. (non-admin closure) SWik78 (talk • contribs) 17:19, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No More Dead Dogs

Article doesn't state notability of subject. Call me Bubba (talk) 20:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—Favorably reviewed book with plenty of sources available, including many google book hits. Won 2003 Young Reader's Choice Award.—RJH (talk) 21:48, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, not sure what the nominator is saying by "it doesn't state notability of subject"... Its a novel and has won a couple of awards and there is plenty of sources out there for it. I actually read the book a few years back (although I don't really remember it). Tavix (talk) 22:45, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—Favourably reviewed, winner of the aforementioned award. Article could do with further clean-ups beyond what I did the other night, and more references particularly to the prize-winning, but it shows promise. Ianjm (talk) 01:08, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I added two reliable source reviews to the article, this article clearly passes several requirements of WP:BK.--Captain-tucker (talk) 01:38, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Ditto most of the above reasons. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 15:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep— Favourably reviewed --Twilight Wolf 64 (talk) 16:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC) — Twilight Wolf 64 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep Notability is not at issue. Ecoleetage (talk) 22:43, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ^Happy ^Holidays 02:35, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pennsylvania street gangs

Delete unreferenced, barely any context, are these groups notable? are they unique to Pennsylvania? do we have some reliable sources to show these are "mixed-race" street gangs? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ASAP. No sources, no blue links at all. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced. I'm not sure whether these would be in Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, or one of the Amish communities around Reading. The Wikipedia street gang posts grafitti too, but a citation is added on the sidewalk. Mandsford (talk) 23:34, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Sourcing is especially important in articles about alleged street gangs, given that the subject invites both fear-mongering and swagger. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per A7 by Deb. (non-admin closure) MrKIA11 (talk) 20:39, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Justin ellingwood

Despite the subject's obvious talent, there's nothing - no Google hits, at any rate - to suggest that this is anything other than just another non-notable vanity autobiography. It does claim (unverifiable) notability, though, so it's not speediable. Sandstein 20:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as failing to make a claim of notability. Poetry.com's Editor's Choice Award doesn't rise to the level of notability. HeureusementIci (talk) 20:28, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete According to this winner, Poetry.com's Editor's Choice award barely rises above the level of marketing scam. Rklear (talk) 20:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced nonsense, unfortunately probably not speediable. Sandstein 20:04, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. On his talk page, the creator says, "It does not exist anywhere." Now, in a way he's right, since it doesn't; in a way, he's wrong, since it's here on WP. Let's make him right. (Not notable, made up, nonsense, etc.) Drmies (talk) 20:11, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Xe has said much the same on the article's talk page. Xyr own talk page pretty much states outright that xe is here to abuse Wikipedia as a soapboax and as a vehicle for publishing original research. This is a canonical example of content that is prohibited on Wikipedia. Uncle G (talk) 00:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is made-up, original research, non-notable etc. LinguistAtLarge 20:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. HeureusementIci (talk) 20:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Does not exist, neither should the article. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 20:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete and recommend that the article's creator read the basic Wikipedia guidelines. This is not a soapbox in which to push new ideas about social justice which hasn't even gained a single shred of notability from the real world. MuZemike (talk) 20:51, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, gently. Among other things, this seems to be an attempt to publicize a user page, and as such inappropriately mixes encyclopedia and project content. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - courtesy moved here to tidy the listing and presumed !vote added by me Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 23:28, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ex-Conism does exist. Ex-Conism is as much alive as you and me. People with a stigma arising from criminal involvement are discriminated against and this is not an issue well addressed in social welfare literature. All of you sound like the Pharisees in Jesus' time or the critics that said the Wright brothers would never fly and again those who put Galileo to death. You are armchair critics with nothing to add to the world but obstacles.

The concept and principles of ex-conism are present in feminism and racism and if you would but open your heart and minds, you'd see what I am trying to accomplish. Feminism and racism had its founder too. Where better to advance knowledge than in an encyclopedia? Why limit information that is obviously needed and valuable? Why do people always erect barriers to things they do not understand?

All movements and philosophies have their founders, from psychology, existentialism, anthropology and you get the point. Today you have a man who lives among you who has founded a modern social justice discourse and you rebel and react like petty tyrants. You strike me as elitists, the very people this dialog aims to eliminate and eradicate and challenge. You think you can control media and information but you can not. Freedom of speech and of the press is the cornerstone of the US constitution. We ought to encourage bold new thinkers, and not try to kill them.

When you are finished limiting your selves to childish rules and guidelines and rise above your immature and unreasonable biases, perhaps then you will have achieved a modicum of humility to enable you to grant this creative thinker his right to create a better world for all people. The world belongs to all.

Have you listened to your selves lately? Damn laughable I tell you, damn laughable. Your babble is nonsense. I advance a social discourse based on personal experience, much like the feminists have. Experience is the most valued thing in life, so remarked Henry Ford. You can take your Oxford and Yale degrees and you know where to place them. They mean nothing if they do not improve our social condition. You wield your position as editors on this site like a band of petty tyrants. All great ideas have had to smash conventional boundaries aand you will be the heads I smash. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sendakite (talk • contribs) 22:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The encyclopedia is not an appropriate place to propagate this idea. If it has merit, it should be pursued in the traditional paths of social science publication, after which it will become legitimate material for an encyclopedia. HeureusementIci (talk) 01:52, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Richard 'Ritchy' Dubé

Please see neologism and memetics - Try to keep and open mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sendakite (talk • contribs) 13:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 20:16, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bête blanche

Unsourced, non-notable neologism. Hqb (talk) 19:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Nonsense. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:52, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If anything, it should be in Wiktionary, not Wikipedia.--el Aprel (^facta-_facienda)
Delete. This article makes reference to both bête noire and bête blanche, but I still find this a unsourced, non-notable neologism. In addition, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. LinguistAtLarge 19:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Silly protologism. Sandstein 20:11, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sovena

This article was a copyvio/advertisement. It has already been speedily deleted three times as advertising. This time, other editors removed the advertising, but left it in a state where it gives no context. Perhaps there will be a legitimate article some day, so don't salt, but delete? —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep There is notability to be found, if one looks for it. This may not be the article that we want about this company, but it should be possible to find sources to improve it. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Mere notability of the topic doesn't save an article, as speedy deletion for having no content or no context or for consisting entirely of advertising or copyright violations applies even for article with notable topics. This article is one that can be speedily deleted. I only brought it here for discussion in order to permit WP:CSD G4 in the future. —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete IMO, it doesn't meet WP:CORP. I googled it, and the first twenty hits I checked were first a link to the company website and then how to get a job there, plus other businesses that share the same name.--el Aprel (^facta-_facienda) 20:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nutrinveste, Sovena's parent company. Sovena is probably notable enough for its own article (See [2]), but I don't think we're going to find enough information for it to ever be more than a stub. For now it should be part of the Nutrinveste article. LinguistAtLarge 20:12, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--the way I look at it, this is still an ad. "More and more a reference," that's (weaselish) promotion. Drmies (talk) 20:13, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Here are some pay per view sources to establish Sovena's notability. It looks like Sovena is the second largest olive oil producer in the world. LinguistAtLarge 20:16, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a miracle the article never claimed that, or found any of those references. Drmies (talk) 21:09, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing but promotion. If a real article was to be written, it wouldn't be G4-able. Jclemens (talk) 04:08, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice. This business may be notable. But the current content - Sovena is more and more a reference in olive oil global market. In order to aggregate several companies, promote a specialization in each stage of olive oil life, being present from production all the way through to distribution - can only serve to mislead readers to conclude that we actually have an article about this potentially notable business. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as advertising. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:09, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Walet lapping

WP is not for something made up one day ukexpat (talk) 19:28, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:35, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 4 ghits = not notable. Perhaps they might spend more time studying spelling instead of annoying their friends by hitting them with wallets?--Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nonsense Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete nonsense, made up, vandalism, snowball: all apply, so why not speedily? TrulyBlue (talk) 19:39, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Certainly made up, surprised not speedy deleted. Paste ^Talk 19:43, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Nonsense. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can we have a snowball close/delete on this one please? – ukexpat (talk) 20:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Happy ^Holidays 01:20, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blood wars

Delete nothing demonstrating the notability of this game. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 19:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no actual claim here, no notability, no context, no nothing. This is not an article; might as well snowball it. Drmies (talk) 20:16, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 20:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's no evidence of the existance of this game, let alone notability. Edward321 (talk) 01:54, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A7, no assertion of notability (it looks like this is a web-based game rather than downloadable software, so A7 would be appropriate here). Mdwh (talk) 17:12, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Mdwh, no need to waste another day on this one. JBsupreme (talk) 17:13, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. While rough consensus is for deletion, there is also a great lack of verification of the facts alleged in the article. His work as a businessman alone is not sufficient for inclusion and there is no verification of his skills as an author. Deletion is without prejudice to re-creation when and if sources are brought forward. JodyB_talk 14:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

George Wallace Mcdonald

Author shows no inclination to respond to the need to establish notability. I'm willing to be patient, but if we don't soon see citations to independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject, we ought to flush the article, right? Dicklyon (talk) 19:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability not established. ukexpat (talk) 19:11, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article appears to describe to me the author of multiple notable books and designer of a notable product. The sourcing needs some work, but the article content appears to indicate the subject passes the third criterion of WP:CREATIVE. So, unless this is a hoax, this is a clean-up issue, not a deletion one. JulesH (talk) 19:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:39, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:39, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with JulesH that if the article content is true, he passes the notability test. The problem is I can't easily find any sources to back any of the statements up. If someone can provide sources, I'll happily change this !vote to Keep. LinguistAtLarge 19:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I added a source for that Z-thing. That and two books, that might be enough. But I'm not particularly attached to it, and I am going to cut some fluff in the article (and work on some grammar and style...). Drmies (talk) 20:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Drmies (talk) 20:39, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — Oh, what the heck? MuZemike (talk) 20:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Notwithstanding the above (I'm quite sure coincidental) comment I have made the other day, the article cannot exhibit enough significant coverage from secondary sources to establish WP:BIO. MuZemike (talk) 20:58, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Bad news: Looks like a promotion for something called "Z-card", likely will be deleted. Good news: Wal-Mart bakery will be glad to decorate his birthday cake. Mandsford (talk) 23:39, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, the 156 jobs, that is actually in that article I referenced. Funny how the original author never considered adding anything that might could be called a reference--the ZCard website had nothing that was the least bit informative. And I wasn't going to say anything about that card itself. Or about Shoprite! Drmies (talk) 02:36, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Z-Card web site contains enough information to show notability of Z-Card (i.e. it has references to magazines discussing the product). This is a useful start. JulesH (talk) 13:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where? It has this, and it's impossible to tell where that's from (besides 'Schoenmaker page 16'), and there's this from the Guardian: a half-sentence which proves that the product exists and that someone bought it. What else is there on the site that I missed? Drmies (talk) 16:09, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Anyone who has read the article since User:Drmies trimmed it will have missed a relevant fact that I've just restored; that two of his books were featured in a notable TV series. JulesH (talk) 13:24, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I looked at it again, and I'm sorry I deleted that--you'll have to admit, though, that it was easy to miss the relevant information in that half-sentence, given that none of the information in the article was organized or formatted according to WP standards (I mean italics, Wiki links, etc.) and that the whole thing appeared to be one big run-on sentence. But thanks for cleaning up and restoring. Note also that I did not vote to delete the article, and have added a reference.

But note also this: the original entry did not list Katie Wood as a co-author, and there was (is) no actual evidence that his book was 'featured' (nor have I been able to find any). So really, this 'featured,' I am inclined to take that with a grain of salt: the article just does not look authoritative, and I have little reason to believe the author(s) at their word. This article still needs independent coverage. Drmies (talk) 16:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - looks like a conflict of interest at work. Deb (talk) 13:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Anal Cunt discography. MBisanz ^talk 01:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Old Stuff, Part Two

This article consists almost entirely of track listings and includes no citations from reliable sources. This is not a notable subject. Neelix (talk) 18:40, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Nothing to merge here, although albums by notable artists are generally notable. There seem to be no sources for this one. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:51, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: albums by notable artists may be notable per WP:MUSIC, but an assumption of notability can't be made. Sure, every album by The Rolling Stones is probably notable, if only because there will be 25 professional reviewers saying "I can't believe no one has written about this obscure Stones album". But that won't be the case for every notable band, particularly lesser known ones.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:45, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Anal Cunt discography, unless sources appear showing notability. Valid search term; redirects are cheap, so help the reader out.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: agree with nominator Neelix, nothing of note to merge. JamesBurns (talk) 06:52, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deletion (G3). -- Ed (Edgar181) 21:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Martinez Beaver Monster

Article is a hoax. The reference to the Contra Costa Times is non-existent and the web reference appears to have been set up to support the Wikipedia article. Additionally, nothing shows up in Google. ttonyb1 (talk) 18:34, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G3 Blatant misinformation. If it were a giant otter monster, I might say weak keep just because otters are full of win (kidding). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:52, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Zero ghits, zero gnews hits. Besides, what self-respecting monster would live in Martinez? ;-P --Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:52, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A little further information. I'm surprised to learn that there are real beavers in Martinez. (I had assumed they were only further inland). However, I don't think a redirect to Martinez, California beavers is worthwhile.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:55, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:54, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Rakos

An IP tried to nominate this for afd but didn't do it right (just a red link transclusion). No substantial sources found in a search, no notability asserted per WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:58, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because Excite search isn't really showing anything notable except his own Myspace profile, and he only has 74 friends there (see http://friends.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewfriends&friendID=60144498&MyToken=0ded4647-7003-4f73-abc9-0d71801d6a23). I have a larger friend list than this guy does. Doesn't meet WP:N. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 18:14, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't show notability per WP:MUSIC. Schuym1 (talk) 00:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:24, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 14:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Asa Akira

No evidence of notability per WP:PORNBIO. Tabercil (talk) 14:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil (talk) 14:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Suitable for a comprehensive adult database, but not notable enough for Wikipedia. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 14:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of passing WP:PORNBIO or WP:N. Tatarian (talk) 15:01, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She's a regular on Bubba the Love Sponge's show; wouldn't that make her notable?SPNic (talk) 15:23, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation – I hadn't read the pornographic actor criteria, but have now. I agree: (a) no major awards won or nominated for, (b) hasn't made a ground breaking contribution, and (c) hasn't featured much in mainstream media. When I added the profile, I thought that inclusion in the adult film databases and IMDB was enough, however according the these criteria it isn't. P3L3 (talk) 15:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Three WP:PORNBIO nominations in a row? remember WP:NOTCENSORED--Ipatrol (talk) 15:29, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ahem... take a look at the list of active participants in Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography. I think you'll find my name there. :) Tabercil (talk) 15:56, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability per WP:PORNBIO. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:44, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent reliable sources = not notable. Descíclope (talk) 23:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Her coverage here is probably enough to satisfy WP:N, and her Bubba the Love Sponge appearances may be enough to satisfy WP:PORNBIO criteria 3. Epbr123 (talk) 17:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Relisted on account of Epbr123's new source. Sandstein 17:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the source raised by Epbr123, she now satisfies PORNBIO, amongst other things. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 20:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 01:40, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was G11 Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:40, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nick King

Spam. Article was nominated for speedy under G11 but the nomination was removed by an anonymous editor who has continued to update the page. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:48, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this Nick King seems to be completely unrelated to the subject of WP:Articles for deletion/Nick King. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:51, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G11 anyway, I can't imagine any other result. This is pretty blatant and probably a copyvio to boot. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Rewrite The article very vague and does not clearly indentify who this "Nick King" is. Nick is a very common name, and so is King. This article isn't encyclopedic at all; it serves no purpose other than to promote the person to people who have heard of him. What is the point of a Wikipedia article if a reader has to go to a search engine and try to determine who this person is anyway? This article has no citations, no external links, no Wikilinks, very little information, and although I'm not a big fan of deletion of poorly written articles with no reason other than the way they are written, this article makes no assertion of notability, it serves no purpose to anybody, is promotional, makes Wikipedia look like it is written by third graders (no offense to any little kids out there), and seems to fall under multiple CSD criteria. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 18:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy G11 per Ten Pound Hammer. [Belinrahs | 'sup? | what'd I do?] 19:19, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn Yeah, whatever. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Businesses and organizations in Second Life

No real notability, indiscriminate list. Uncategorized to boot. Kept in March with promises to trim and source. Sourced, maybe, trimmed, no. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 17:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- I see no problems with the list that can't be solved through editing/cleanup. Umbralcorax (talk) 18:13, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then why is nobody tending to it? :-P Seriously, it seems like an unmaintainable list to me. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:34, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your second point- I'm not seeing how its unmaintainable. It seems like as long as the stuff in there is sourced correctly (and the first part of the article is re-written, holy cow is that badly done), it seems to me at least, that it can be done. As for your first question... probably because everybody who would want to do it is too busy living their second lives to be worried about first life things like wikipedia ;). As a serious response, all i can really say is just because it *hasn't* been done, doesn't mean it *can't* be done.Umbralcorax (talk) 18:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The basis is valid and I can't see problems with the implementation that would defeat the article's point. Much has been written about business in Second Life: we definitely need to cover corporate presence. The list has very clear criteria. If entries need to be limited further, which I don't think they do, we should at the least look at the way the matter has been handled in other business or organization lists. --Kiz o r 18:40, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep really major internet phenomenon., I'm not sure where it would shade over into directory, but the presenrt article is still ok and the criteria satisfactory. DGG (talk) 18:58, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but clean-up: There are reliable third-party sources on many of these businesses and organizations in Second Life because it's a pretty monumental phenomenon. Also, I don't think anything has really changed (on Wikipedia, or in the game industry) that would justify a change in consensus from the previous AFD, which was to keep. However, there was also a consensus that a lot of the in-game-only organizations were inappropriate and verging on WP:SPAM. There appears to be a consensus to clean this list up so that it isn't an indiscriminate list of every "player" to make an organization in the "game", but a list of truly notable organizations. A lot of this article violates WP:SPAM and WP:MADEUP. Randomran (talk) 19:18, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but definite need for clean-up This is certainly notable -- I remember hearing on NPR when Wells Fargo decided to open up in the game. But it needs lots of cleanup, perhaps a total makeover. [Belinrahs | 'sup? | what'd I do?] 19:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I went ahead and cleaned this up. You can compare the version that was originally nominated for deletion here, with the new version here. Everything I removed was either unreferenced, or referenced to sources that would fail WP:V (and for information that would fail WP:NOT). Randomran (talk) 19:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:56, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dooble

Non-notable piece of software (notablility not asserted, and I can't find any good mention of it by Googling), only recently released as beta and not a single source other than its own webpage. Contested PROD with reasoning of "This is linked from the List_of_Web_Browsers page and should not be deleted. All alternative web browsers are notable and at minimum a link should be provided to the software's home page.", two arguments that correspond to circular reasoning at best (walled-garden at worst) and an assertion that is totally at odds with WP:N standards. DMacks (talk) 17:09, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not (yet) notable. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above arguments, and the fact that the article doesn't cite any Reliable sources to confirm the subject's notability.--Unscented (talk) 22:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The browser was created on September 8th, 2008 so it is extremely new. This pagew should be recreated when it reaches a milestonebeyond 0.01, and some third party review of the project. -- Aronzak (talk) 01:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –Juliancolton ^Happy ^Holidays 17:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Waffles

The subject's correct name is Michael Wallis. Article redirects from the existing Michael Wallis article. -- Skywatcher68 (talk) 15:41, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G3 Redirect reverted. This is clear copy-paste vandalism. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:52, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirected to Prank call#Legality. Non-admin closing. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 15:18, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SWATing

Slang term, used to refer to a certain type of crime. Nothing but a dicdef, and only two of the three sources could be regarded as a reliable assertion of usage (and a very weak one at that, since they used quotation marks), the other one being a blog. Surely there is an existing, more complete article to which this one can be redirected to, but none comes to mind. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 15:06, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Happy ^Holidays 02:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We Made It

This fictional location does not establish notability independent of Known Space through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 17:22, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- this article has no sources and there is no evidence of real-world impact (insert joke about crash landings here). That's probably why the article contains nothing but plot summary written in an in-universe style. Reyk _YO! 21:51, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Known Space. Edward321 (talk) 00:16, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Make a dab page so we can link both the Busta Rhymes song and link to the location discussed in the main Known Space article. - Mgm|^(talk) 00:23, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dab page: Was gonna say "redirect" until it was pointed out that there is a song called We Made It (song). Ryan4314 (talk) 06:41, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a List of locations in Known Space 76.66.195.159 (talk) 06:42, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. No need for a dab page in my opinion Eusebeus (talk) 15:30, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Happy ^Holidays 14:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and move We Made It (song) to We Made It. No sign of notability for We Made It as an independent topic, coverage in the Known Space article is sufficient.—Kww(talk) 14:55, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

this seems like a merge argument--why did you say "delete"? DGG (talk) 19:09, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because all that need be said about it in Known Space is already said about it in Known Space. I wouldn't carry any information from this article to that one.—Kww(talk) 19:12, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and move the song to this title per above. No notability independently of Known Space. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:06, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- This is not an article, something else. --Tamás Kádár (talk) 17:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 17:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the main article or a suitable subarticle., it does not need independent notability to have the contents be part of an article. I don't think there is any question that it cannot stand as an article of is own. DGG (talk) 19:09, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a List of locations in Known Space. --AlexTingle (talk) 12:18, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 19:08, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maxine "Max" Gibson

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Maxine "Max" Gibson

This character does not establish notability independent of Batman Beyond through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 22:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not establish notability through significant coverage of real world context in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. Jay32183 (talk) 08:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. It's fancruft; merge the content with Batman (Terry McGinnis). --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 14:54, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 05:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 05:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 05:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Batman Beyond - take away the unsorced POV section "Notable episodes" and there's nothing of significance worth saving. Too bad there isn't a referenced List of characters in Batman Beyond article to which this could be pointed instead. B.Wind (talk) 04:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Happy ^Holidays 14:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Don't delete this page!. The merge is enough. Raven1977 (talk) wrote some good causes. --Tamás Kádár (talk) 17:11, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge No reason has been given not to., There is not need for independent notability on merged content, and the primary source is sufficient for the purpose of V.DGG (talk) 19:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Chainsaw and Redirect to the cast/characters section of Batman Beyond. Not a very notable character outside this series. I don't even know why the article's name is "Maxine "Max" Gibson". It should be "Max Gibson", since that's the character's common name. Jonny2x4 (talk) 03:08, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Batman Beyond. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:14, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Show some discussions, and your thinking, specifically related to this article, not just copy/paste AfDs. The way you mass nominate articles, I don't have time to have an opinion other than that. I'm having trouble assuming good faith on these mass noms. All that's left is a copy/paste response. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:33, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My assumption is that the nominator simply has a way to describe articles that should be deleted that he/she can utilize when nominating articles at AfD. It conveys several rationales for deletion. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:54, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Zoids. MBisanz ^talk 01:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whitz Wolf

This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of Zoids through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research, trivial model details, and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, and this is too trivial to require any separate coverage. TTN (talk) 22:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Zoids. There's no original research in sight and you made no effort showing the article is unverifiable rather than unverified by making a reasonable effort to find sources as required by WP:AFD. (those are two different things) - Mgm|^(talk) 09:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unnotable. Eusebeus (talk) 23:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 05:01, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and consider merging elsewhere. As an expansion of the uninformative nomination, there is a discussion on the nominator's talk page,where he announces his intent to nominate for deletion regardless of reasons to merge: "There are currently under twenty articles not currently nominated, so I'd like to just finish up with the nominations over the next two days just to be uniform." I am not sure it is reasonable to assume good faith here--this very much sounds like a concerted campaign regardless of the individual merits of the articles. DGG (talk) 05:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Happy ^Holidays 14:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom as non-notable. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 20:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - devoting an entire article to one minor fictional robot among hundreds is pointless and a clear example of undue weight. I do not support a merge because, firstly, there's no appropriate material in this article to salvage (it's all unsourced trivia) and, secondly, the halfway credible Zoids articles that would be targets for the merge are already chock-a-block full of cruft and would be made worse by tipping more cruft into them. Reyk _YO! 23:03, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and reference better. Merging a full article into a list won't work. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:42, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks real world notability and non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) 00:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Norm Smith. MBisanz ^talk 01:58, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Curse of Norm Smith

Another curse that fails WP:NOR, and like all these other curse of x I nominated, can't find much on google that it's a real "curse" Delete Secret ^account 21:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources. No indications this is a notable "curse". Edward321 (talk) 01:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The article "Norm Smith recognised as an AFL legend" from The Age, states that "Smith publicly expressed his regret about the sacking in a famous television interview and it is part of club folklore that they have not won a premiership since '64 because of 'the curse of Norm Smith'." Also see "Curse of Socceroos has finally been broken" and "AFL: Jackson defends Norm Smith award" which are some of the other articles that discuss the curse. I'm not sure that Google is great at picking up Australian articles and I would assume that there are more that I'm not finding. This and other sources should be added to the article. Alansohn (talk) 14:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 05:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Google returns less than 100 results for this term, excluding Wikipedia pages. A page at Fox Sports describes the curse as "club folklore." Luinfana (talk) 06:22, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Canley (talk) 05:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:30, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Whislt some of the other articles found and listed above could be challenged as trivial coverage or not reliable sources, I think Norm Smith and the curse of the Demons is a very reliable, non-trivial secondary source. The-Pope (talk) 12:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Norm Smith article. All the sources found so far convince me it needs to be covered, but the Norm Smith article isn't so lang as to encourage a split off. (I'm sure the current curse article can be shortened). - Mgm|^(talk) 23:21, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Mgml. It's a valid search term and it's where the material belongs, no need for a separate article. StarM 20:15, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Happy ^Holidays 14:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge' with the article on the person. No possible independent notability. DGG (talk) 19:11, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I have a problem with the merge idea, as the article on a legend of the game (he elevated to legend status in the Australian Football Hall of Fame in 2007) should not include a list of "appearances of the curse", ie times in the past 50 years when Melbourne has failed. It should only include what it currently has, a mention (and link) of it in the section on Smith getting the sack (what caused the "curse" to be imposed). The inclusion in the category of Category:Sports-related curses will also be lost in a merge. Of course curse articles are prone to WP:OR, but that should be dealt with within the article with {{fact}} tags, not by deletion. The-Pope (talk) 12:39, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Nuwaubianism. MBisanz ^talk 02:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nuwaubic

There is no actual discussion of the Nuwaubic language, only cultural posturing. The article is not noteworthy, it cites only a single source, albeit multiple times. It actually contains no information about this supposed language. The body of the article has no purpose. I think it should just be deleted. It serves no purpose on Wikipedia. Pstanton 03:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Keep Part of the reason for the creation of this article was to take some of the size-pressure off of Nuwaubianism which was growing pretty large. Current-day Nuwaubians continue to learn and develop "Nuwaubic" and it would be interesting to have an encyclopedic article on this. The current article isn't really up to snuff, but with luck, like so much of Wikipedia, it will get that way over time. For this reason, I counsel against deletion. -— (talk) 05:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There isn't any reputable source in here. The one reference to that NYPress article is only to prove that in Egyptian 'usa' means 'eye'--pardon me, but I wouldn't use the NYPress as a dictionary for any language, so that reference is trivial. Now maybe at some point this article can become a real article, but this is not that point. BTW, some of those etymologies are amusing, esp. the one with the car horns of the 1700s. Delete for non-notability. Drmies (talk) 05:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Nuwaubianism. This doesn't merit its own article, but the info fits into the umbrella article. Un school 07:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:53, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per unschool. Juzhong (talk) 02:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Happy ^Holidays 14:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit and merge as suggested above. Somebody's been taking P-Funk mythology way too seriously. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:12, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Disagree with smerging to Nuwaubianism. Fascinatingly bizarre stuff. Шизомби (talk) 18:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. This is about the notability of the person, not about the notability of rictameter. Sandstein 14:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jason D. Wilkins

Non-notable poet. Self-promotional. Only references are self-published. Graymornings_(talk) 13:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A web search on "rictameter" shows that the form is pretty popular these days, and there are at least a few references ([3]) indicating that Wilkins' claim may be valid. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Undecided. I can only find one source I would consider reliable and independent, and that refers back to Wikipedia. (Yes, I know the book's self published, but (a) this is common practice in the field of poetry and (b) the author is clearly an expert on the subject so passes WP:V). I'd say that while rictameter is notable (notable enough for a retired professor of English to write an autobiography in the form, at least), its inventors unfortunately don't seem to be. My only concern is WP:CREATIVE point 2. On the face of it, Wilkins meets this requirement. The concept seems to be (becoming) important in its field. But there are apparently no reliable sources that discuss Wilkins' role in creating it, other than those written by Wilkins himself. And those that derive directly from the wikipedia article. JulesH (talk) 14:52, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence that any of his work was ever actually published by anyone other than himself, or has ever been noticed by anyone in a published source. I strongly doubt that rictameter is notable either: oe selfd-published book written in the format is nt notability, but that will be for a later afd. DGG (talk) 19:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are SCADS of hits on term rictameter. Clearly this form has caught on, if only among amateur poets. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:19, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rictameter has its own article and seems notable, but the poet himself hasn't been mentioned in enough third-party sources to have his own article, at least for now. Redirecting to rictameter is a possibility. However, rictameter does look like it has a bit of a web following, and if it keeps growing as a phenomenon, Wilkins might be notable enough for an article in the future. Graymornings_(talk) 22:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there are more than just the one self-published book that reference Rictameter. If you only checked at Amazon.com and ran a search under rictameter, you would see there are many more from authors in various locations around the world. Rompues (talk) 03:14, 19 December 2008 (UTC)Rompues[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:30, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:30, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete . nn subject,possible creator of a notable poetic form, but the connection between the two seems dubious. While I can't doubt that the story about the Rictameter, it can not be proven with the sources given, and I cant find a site that provides a clear connection between Wilkins and the creation of the Rictameter, which means that while notability can possibly be proven, the article fails to do so, and in that failure finds itself without notability. If we can't verify the information on the page, then it can't be included in an encyclopedia, or else any person in the world could have a page so long as they claim they created something without having any proof that they did.Mrathel (talk) 16:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the link between Wilkins and Rictameter is dubious, and even if it could be verified, I don't believe that would be enough to get him to pass WP:N. I don't believe this person meets any of the WP:CREATIVE notability guidelines. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was G7 by Discospinster, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mediawiki Extensions list

What does "waste of space" fall under? Seriously, doesn't (and never will) constitute article material, and is far too detailed to be included within the MediaWiki article. Ironholds (talk) 13:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence that mediawiki extensions in general are notable, so a complete list of them is useless. JulesH (talk) 13:39, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

La Maravilla (album)

Non-notable internet-only release. Fails WP:MUSIC. SummerPhD (talk) 13:19, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Doesn't show notability per WP:MUSIC. Schuym1 (talk) 00:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The debut album by an artist, and it was never released. Fails any and all notability tests.—Kww(talk) 21:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 19:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Red Hot Pawn

No evidence of substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources. MBisanz ^talk 13:03, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (I prod'd this article before, with the same rationale). — Werdna • talk 13:04, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The WikiPedia entry for RedHotPawn has been targetted by an ex-user (I'll call him Mr V - although he appears to post on Wiki mostly under the name crowleyrhp - the RHP part of the name being noteworthy) who was banned for posting inappropriate comments in the RHP forums. He has subsequently found an effective way to exact his revenge by defacing the RedHotPawn Wiki entry and attacking the guys who run the RHP site. This has quickly been raised to a stage where an entry which has been effectively dormant and unviewed for years now finds itself is up for deletion - following which a charming email was sent to the site owners proclaiming the victory. It would certainly be a relief if the page did not exist - I suspect very few people have any interest in it and I suspect also that the original creators, Mr V, and the people in this discussion are the only ones who have ever seen it. The deletion will at least go someway to satisfying this person's frustration which would personally make me feel quite fluffy inside. I'm guessing that this is the correct place to include this information - I got a slap across the wrist a couple of days ago from a WikiPedia editor for changing the RedHotPawn Wiki entry to remove one of Mr V's nasty comments under my original WikiPedia name "RedHotPawn" - for which I certainly apologise - I didn't mean any harm - I had thought I was doing the right thing by changing it. My only fear is that once the RedHotPawn entry is removed, he will simply create it again - can this be prevented? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kitmo2002 (talk • contribs) 18:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If they are notable, removing the page because it is being vandalized is not the solution. The page can be protected if necessary. Removing it because it is being attacked would not be NPOV. I don't think it would be right even if it were a matter of BLP, and this is just a chess site. DGG (talk) 19:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with DGG vandalism is not a fully valid reason to delete a page, but I think this site is not notable enough to be worth an article. SyG (talk) 22:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing notable. There are a few of these sites (Chess Corner is another one) with similar formats. Correspondence chess already exists, so the most that RHP could possibly warrant is an external link from that article. Brittle heaven (talk) 23:34, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article does not reference any reliable secondary sources, failing WP:N and WP:V. Additionally, I could not find any sources that would meet WP:RS in order to reference this article. Gazi moff 07:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons given by Gazimoff. Krakatoa (talk) 12:54, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted (G12, copyvio) by Dweller. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 14:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Homme

dubious notability Nubile Servant (talk) 12:55, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ChuniTana

Notability claimed but not asserted. No reliable sources. Google results don't assert either - Omarcheeseboro (talk) 12:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all sources are self-published and there is nothing else I can find to support any of the claims made. --Rodhull andemu 13:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response: The site chunitana.tk clarifies "Copyright© Tony Berndtsson = All Rights Reserved" and that he is the author of the website, where he claims the same information as I posted on the chunitana-wikipedia page as true. It may be self-published by him but isn't he the one true source for information about himself and his work? Please clarify. The claims made are verified by the author himself, Tony Berndtsson, why not contact him through email and ask him about the page? Because the only reason I see for the page to be deleted is if the author himself did not write those claims, but why not clarify it by contacting him?

We do not regard self-published sources as reliable enough to establish notability. As for contacting him (???) it is up to an editor seeking to add information to provide a reliable source for it. --Rodhull andemu 13:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then why did my other wikipedia page stay up? Fiction Factory One of the sources to that page is http://www.inthe00s.com/archive/inthe80s/bbs9/webBBS_9509.shtml which is written by one of the band members. What matter does it make if the source is self-published; why is someone else's words more reliable? I did not write that ChuniTana invented the light bulb, I only wrote what he wrote about himself on his website. What he wrote there may not be true, I'm with ya there, but what difference does it make? What is the danger in him saying that he writes poetry.

His claims are subjective (that he is well-known in his hometown) and harmless (that he writes poetry and does music). The information is not reliable in the way that we cannot know if it is the "real" Tony Berndtsson who hosts the site, but what matter does that make? There are more than one Tony Berndtsson and most people don't exist on wikipedia to begin with. The exeption here is that this is an entertainer, be he real or not. The information that wikipedia states is truth and shall always be truth, I ackknowledge that, but there is no harm done if there is a proof that the wikipedia-page of ChuniTana is not the truth, because it is about a harmless and subjective matter. Please, consider not deleting it. :(—Preceding unsigned comment added by Animeranmatony (talk • contribs) 14:45, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please read about notability. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 15:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you read Wikipedia's verifiability policy, you will read that Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. MuZemike (talk) 17:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's nothing here--it's the equivalent of a MySpace musician, without even a claim to notability. To the creator: I made a minor edit to the article which would bring it more in line with WP policy--as you can see, perhaps, once a rigorous edit is made there is not much left. Sorry, but them's the shakes. Drmies (talk) 20:48, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I thought the original version of the article was claiming notability. Now that I review it I don't know why I thought that. Oops. At least now if it can be speedy'd as A4 if introduced again. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 18:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:36, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:36, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete no assertion of notability. tgies (talk) 12:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (notability, no) Proofreader77 (talk) 19:30, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mao Ivanoff

Nominating article as possible hoax. I can find no information whatsoever to confirm that this person was Che Guevara's grandfather, or that he was a well known composer. — Twinzor ^{Say hi!} 12:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This article was previously created as Che guevara's grandfather. I've checked Google, Google Scholar, Google Books, and the Che Guevara Bio on Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Britanica, with no results. --Oliver Twisted 12:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 17:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Edward321 (talk) 03:17, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per CSD G12 by Kusma; non-admin closure. PC78 (talk) 11:43, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael J. Roth

Delete - obvious copyvio from this site. An editor removed the speedy delete tag with no explanation. Otto4711 (talk) 11:09, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per G12. If someone wants to try writing an article about the subject in their own words, then the discussion would last longer, but this is confirmed ripoff. Kudos to Otto for catching it. Mandsford (talk) 14:12, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a clear cut copyvio. I've put the speedy tag back. PC78 (talk) 09:53, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Wingrove

This is a clear a WP:BLP1E. A 18-year-old person who shot a video with a panda sneezing. Magioladitis (talk) 10:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: Textbook WP:BLP1E, as per Magioladitis. --Oliver Twisted 11:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: per WP:BLP1E Schuym1 (talk) 00:30, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted under CSD#G7. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ takes life at five times the average speed 13:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ann Ariel Wilson

Dubious notability and suspected autobio. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 10:18, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fail WP:BIO --Oliver Twisted 11:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of third party recognition of author at Google --Dweller (talk) 12:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment AfD notice repeatedly removed. Springnuts (talk) 12:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
INFO third party references are available. Please contact for details. Also kindly help to create a stub page. User:writersdomain (talk) 12:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Author blanked page. --Oliver Twisted 13:19, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Stratocaster. MBisanz ^talk 02:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Knopfler Stratocaster

Musical instrument with no notability ascribed. Dancarney (talk) 10:13, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Stratocaster, which I think should have a section entitled Signature models to include this and other similar models. JulesH (talk) 11:18, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I support JulesH's proposition. LinguistAtLarge 20:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge in concurrence with Jules and the Linguist. Drmies (talk) 20:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:43, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've tagged a bunch of similar pages to be merged into Fender Stratocaster, namely Ritchie Blackmore Stratocaster, Richie Sambora Stratocaster, Stevie Ray Vaughan Signature Stratocaster, Dick Dale Stratocaster, Fender Buddy Guy Stratocaster, and Buddy Guy Polka Dot Stratocaster. Dancarney (talk) 10:11, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge all: not notable enough to stand on their own. JamesBurns (talk) 06:49, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've performed the merge, but haven't redirected the article as it still has the deletion banner on it. If the closing admin could complete the redirect, that'd be helpful. JulesH (talk) 11:02, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Happy ^Holidays 02:32, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

23 Deluxe

Orphaned article. I have notability concerns about this band, which has a Myspace page. The band supposedly had a #2 hit on the BBC dance chart sometime in September, but the reference is no longer current. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:Music. Óðinn (talk) 10:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although there are some references in googleland that back up the claims made in the article, there are no reliable sources that prove the band meet WP:MUSIC. Perhaps if they release an album they may gain sufficient coverage to meet the notability criteria, but not yet. sparkl_!sm ^hey! 10:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of U.S. state ghost towns

Not so much a "list" as one state's "State ghost towns." A list that will only ever contain one item (unless there's any indication that other states will name future "state ghost towns") should not be its own article. Oren0 (talk) 08:03, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Entire content is already at ghost town anyway. JulesH (talk) 11:34, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 18:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Kind of ironic that an article about ghost towns has been abandoned for more than a year. This "ghost article" probably seemed like a good idea at the time, before the author realized that it wouldn't work out. Mandsford (talk) 23:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus (default keep); a reasonable period of time should be allowed for improvement and then it can be reevaluated and if necessary, renominated. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 04:58, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Kontras

Little, if any, secondary source material on the subject. Not sure if he was really the first "video blogger" but is that sufficient to meet WP:BIO? Mr. Vernon (talk) 08:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Geez, you're quick. I only put that up minutes ago. Multiple sources make the claim that he was the first video blogger. (See his annotation of them here.) There is also much evidence that he is the longest-running video blogger, having been video blogging consistently since 2000 (nearly nine years ago). In addition, he has appeared on the CBS Early Show many times, as a contestant, host, and performer. He was a radio host on WTVN and CD101 many years ago, and he has also appeared on America's Got Talent (albeit in the audience), and as an extra on The Sopranos. All of this information (and much, much more) can be garnered from his 800+ entries. He also satisfies a number of the notability guidelines for "creative professionals", as well as "entertainers", having pioneered his 4TVs format, as well as his video blogging. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 08:14, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I agree with Mr. Vernon. The first video blogger claim has a citation which leads to a personal web site (at the time of this posting). Unless new information is produced, I think this misses WP:BIO. --Oliver Twisted 08:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

However, the link contains screenshots of articles from more reputable (i.e. less personal) sources. I'm in the process of looking up direct links to those articles. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 08:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To your point, screenshots are not WP:RS, and are suspect by their very use. --Oliver Twisted 08:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I'll concede to you that screenshots are not reliable sources (a point I hinted at in my above comment), having been a long-time reader of The Journey, I can assure you that the screenshots are not "suspect by their very use". Here are links to some of the articles he references (and others): [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]. All of these links make reference to one or both claims: that he is the first video blogger and/or that he was the host of Living Room Live on CBS's The Early Show, though I gather you are not doubting the latter claim? And I can assure you that he was not in any way involved in the production of these articles (except, possibly, the ones from CBS). —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 08:45, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assertions in blogs are not reliable. The link which leads to a citation list on Wikipedia video blogging, [[10]], leads to The Wayback Machine, and a page that has been deleted. The claim of The Journey being the first video blog in the 2 sources that do make it, do not agree, as one claims "The Journey" started in 2000, and the last claims it was started in 2004 [11]. None of the sources, including the CBS link to Adam Kontras hosting a local talent show lend any more notability. Also, when you write I can assure you he was in no way responsible... how is that you can make such assurances, especially when the sources don't agree? Just curious. --Oliver Twisted 09:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since when is The Wayback Machine not reliable? This clearly shows the entry was around in 2001, so it's not too much of a stretch to consider the date of January 2, 2000, on it as correct, especially when the home page is proven to have existed as early as June 2000. All signs point to 2000, except that obviously-mistaken AskTonyBrown article. And Living Room Live is far from a "local talent show". The Early Show is broadcast nationwide every weekday morning, and the contestants on Living Room Live were also from across the United States. And I can make such assurances based on the fact that I've been in personal contact with Adam and can tell his is sincere. Plus, I have been reading The Journey since at least 2004—and all of those entries were already there when I began reading. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 09:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As this is an AfD discussion, rather than debate; this will be my last contribution. I don't wish to antagonize you, but we clearly have a difference of opinion regarding what is reliable. I don't dispute the fact that Adam Kontras is a singular talent (or his personal honesty, by the way) and I don't even dispute the fact that, if the article were completely reworked, you might be able to establish notability solely based upon hosting an affiliate CBS show. The issue at hand is using Wikipedia to perpetuate a grandiose claim which, even at a stretch, could not be supported with reliable sources. Let's allow other editors to now weigh in and evaluate the outcome, to avoid any dipping into WP:NPOV territory. --Oliver Twisted 09:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC) (this proved not to be my final contribution, sorry.)--Oliver Twisted 15:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Besides, I never meant for the article to be left as it is. I was merely submitting a first draft for myself and others to expand upon. However, I suppose you and Mr. Vernon like to patrol the new pages, because you both jumped on me (or rather, the article) within minutes of its submission. I really do feel like the article should be given a chance before it is deleted. After all, I did make the effort to source all of the statements, even if my primary source was his personal blog. We'll see if I'm all alone in this opinion. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 10:13, 18 Decem--Oliver Twisted 15:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)ber 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- That goes to show how reliable secondary sources are. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So make up my mind: What's more reliable, primary sources or secondary sources? —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 09:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As shown above, independent sources exist. The fact they contradict each other is not a valid reason for deletion. It merely proves one of those sources is less reliable than the other. (That's what my previous comment is about. I've seen numerous instances of supposedly reliable secondary sources botching up and making serious mistakes; for non-controversial material primary sources tend to be more reliable) - Mgm|^(talk) 12:11, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If sources contradict each other, then they're very much, by definition almost, unreliable. Being 'independent' doesn't overcome that rather large hurdle, I'm afraid. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 05:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:28, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete so far, the references are all to self-published sources, and are not considered reliable. Ohconfucius (talk) 09:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Info: In October, 2008 the Video blogging page was edited to remove Adrian Miles who was a Senior Researcher at the University of Bergen as the first known blog. That archive is still live and online, check this out: [12]. Cheers. I love a good mystery. Side Quest!!! --Oliver Twisted 15:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal : Remove intro from article with 1st video blog claim, tweak the article up a bit and then make a new case for notability on some of Adam Kontras other charming talents. Launch the article and see how well it sails on its own, without the videoblog assertions. You lose my charming personality oozing all over this page, and I'll focus on the discussion with the Video blogging editors about getting a consensus for how to structure that timeline now. Here's my deal. I'll stay off your toes on your article. In return, I'd like you to abide by the decision of the editors who have worked on Video blogging, in respect for their time and investment. Deal?--Oliver Twisted 15:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Adam here, (have no idea how to prove that-lol) Just thought I'd clear a few things up. My show blog (which had videos) started in may of 1999 and on January 2nd 2000 it became a personal video blog called The Journey. The Wayback Machine used to verify this, I haven't checked lately - but the 2004 assertion was just poor reporting (as is the reporting I got my start on Youtube). I was not on an affiliate CBS station, I was part of the NATIONAL CBS Early Show and appeared several times in NY and did my segment, Adam & The Egos at Television City in Los Angeles. I'm not sure how anyone could've derived it as local - a quick search on cbsnews.com and every egos episode is archived there. The Let's Bomb Iran cartoon received millions of hits and was spotlighted on MSNBC in April 2006. All of which is documented. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.93.75.220 (talk) 16:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Adam. As I stated above, I'm not disputing your notability in that regard, and have just basically said run with it, if you have the sources. I'd like some further time to resolve the First Video Blog claim, because this may set a benchmark of sorts... and there is argument for both sides. Adrian Miles has live screen shots, at the time called vogs instead of vlogs. They are well documented in 2000. From what I could get to load on Wayback, June 2000 seems to be the most recent footage of The Journey, which has survived. There is some discussion on this topic that will need to go on, irrespective of the article about you. If your bio article is approved, the decision, whatever it ends up being, can then simply be added. Surely this is a win-win for everybody? --Oliver Twisted 16:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Info: Adam here again... On the first video blog claim, using TheWayBack Machine, you can find this: http://web.archive.org/web/20001216151000/http://www.4tvs.com/Journey/Pages/journal.html that shows the site from a June 2000 web-crawl. Amazingly you can go to the video pages and go into the "4tvs Theater" and watch the first videos. I haven't seen this design in nearly 10 years!! :-) You can even go back to 1999 when I was doing a video blog on my 4tvs show: http://web.archive.org/web/20010521095144/www.4tvs.com/Shows/112799.html - but this was very erratic, not all shows had video, and is a very weak claim to the start of all video blogging. However it should be noted that I was blogging and had attached videos that early. It became a personal video blog on January 2, 2000 and at the very least the conspiracy theorists could say that somehow on June 21st, 2000 when this random web crawl occured I knew this, recreated 55 entries and started June 21st. I hope I'm not the only one who hears how ridiculous that sounds. But how else can we prove this? And do I need to take a screen-capture of the wayback machine for fear that those pages will be lost? I really want to get to the bottom of this because it's a HUGE date in history and I'm incredibly proud of how long I've been doing this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.149.233.6 (talk) 17:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Large problems with reliable sourcing, lack of independent, and, overall, not particularly important achievements adds up to 'try again later when you have more to show for it'. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 05:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Info:Alright, I'm just gonna kind of ignore the "lack of reliable sourcing" comment cause if CBS News (http://search.cbsnews.com/?source=cbs&q=Adam+%26+The+Egos&x=0&y=0) isn't enough - nothing will be. (I guess I didn't ignore that too well. LOL.) Anyway - I'm writing because I have the original vlog files and they have timestamps to verify their creation date which should be able to put this debate to rest. Let me know the best way to proceed (though I believe you can even download the original files, ie: http://4tvs.com/media/journey/yearone/03%20-%20New%20Mexico.MPG and check the source--this one is 01.03.00--'cause you can't erase the original timestamp even when it's copied). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.149.233.6 (talk) 19:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: Adam, I don't believe the comments were meant to disparage CBS as a source. The article listed does not support the 1st video blog assertion. It is an article about your appearance on the morning show, as well as a brief biopic. In order to be able to contribute more positively to this discussion, you might want to be armed with information from: WP:COI. Also, just as a personal note... my goal is not to take away recognition of your hard work. If you are truly the 1st video blogger, you have my admiration and appreciation. I just want to make sure that it is supported by sources, and group consensus. If you prove notability, I will be your strongest supporter. --Oliver Twisted (Talk) 23:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Truce: I totally understand and I realize that the bio right now is woefully under-constructed. I had nothing to do with it, and when I have the time will edit it with better sources and give a broader picture of my stamp on things. My greatest concern is proving the start of the video blog... which consquently is ridiculously difficult at the end of one year and beginning of the next because there are so many design elements that have to change - so I just can't attack this at the moment. But since someone got the ball rolling I will take the time to fully document everything and make a stronger case very soon.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.93.75.220 (talk) 18:34, 22 December, 2008 (UTC)

- Out of curiosity, why do you want your own Wikipedia page so bad? --Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:31, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm more concerned with verifying the start of the first video blog. It's been my life's work for the past ten years and whether or not Wikipedia thinks that's notable only matters because people use it as a source. It's my baby, what can I say? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.93.75.220 (talk) 17:26, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Second consecutive Unambiguous keep; renomination of a unanimous keep within a month on grounds that notability must be renewed by the subject of the article on a continuous basis is to be discouraged. This article gets a free pass for at least 6 months. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 04:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Natalya Rudakova

AfDs for this article:

Article fails to meet WP:ENTERTAINER, actress, after this single movie, appears to have dropped into obscurity, there have been weeks when this article could have been improved, so editors are either lazy, too busy, or this actress has not done anything besides this single film. If she had, I bet there would have been notations made about her next movie. — Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 07:41, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Besides all that, just one more note to people reading this nomination: We here at wikipedia do not keep what-ifs. We do not keep articles here with the hope that they will become notable. When the subject of the article does become notable, then it can be included. Not before.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 08:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:28, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:28, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one role does not a notable actress make. Gimme more. Ohconfucius (talk) 09:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural speedy keep This was nominated less than a month ago! And by the SAME nominator! 76.66.195.159 (talk) 10:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - Your point? The actress quite clearly does not meet WP:ENTERTAINER, after this movie, she fell into obscurity. Editors were given plenty chance to find more sources(there are only two), and if this actor was truly notable, I'm pretty sure editors would have added in information regarding other movies. But so far, no.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 10:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - You've renominated in less than a month. That alone should be sufficient to dump this AfD as being excessive. Actors star in one or two films a year, so expecting a second film with her on the marquee before June 2009 is unreasonable. The film just came out last month, exactly how many bar fights, murders, and whatnot do you expect in a month? The decision of the last AfD was keep, that should be good enough for you to tide you over for atleast a month if not two or three. What makes it so important for you to delete this article RIGHT NOW, instead of in an orderly amount of time? If you had waited just two more weeks, it would have been over a month, you know. 76.66.195.159 (talk) 05:45, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The story of her discovery by Luc Besson is _very_ widely told, and may be grounds to consider her notable. Also, given her staring role in a major film it seems unlikely that further films won't follow. JulesH (talk) 13:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The latter rationale falls squarely under hopeful prediction, not evidence. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 01:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I put this article on my watchlist just a few weeks ago when it was nominated for deletion. It was kept unanimously. Inexplicably, it's being nominated for deletion again by the same person. I noted in my previous vote that the user nominating deletion and the article writer appeared to be edit warring. He disputes they are warring, but this at least appears to be an antagonistic relationship. Chicken Wing (talk) 21:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - Yes, the last nomination ended up in a keep, one of of those who voted to keep suggested that if the actor dropped into obscurity after the movie(which she did), the article should be nominated again. Lastly, I was in no dispute with the editor you speak of, and in fact, he was blocked for personal attacks.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 23:12, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - To any reading CW's comment, simply refer to User talk:Jayhawk of Justice. I was in no dispute with this editor. He has been grossly and unecessarily uncivil(not to mention he has personally attacked several people). I brought the issue to AN/I, the thread of which can be found here. So please, before you assume that I was in some content dispute and make a comment to that effect, try and research what you're talking about.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 23:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply. It’s very accusatory and false to assume I didn’t review the edits in question. It is fair to refer to your interactions with user:Jayhawk of Justice (and his/hers with you) as an antagonistic relationship. I don’t want to be dragged into an entanglement between other parties, so I’m fine with discussing this further, but let’s not create more problems with unnecessarily heated language. Chicken Wing (talk) 23:35, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reply - Well, so far you've been pretty accusatory yourself. If you actually did bother to review the content in question, you would see that I found many of his edits troublsome, and therefore I took it to AN/I. Not once was I in any dispute with him, to call it a dispute when I never attacked him, and he was the only one breaching policy is rather backwards. Please take the time to read through all of it, besides just selectively reading and skimming through.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 23:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Reply. Okay, if you want to continue this further, let's talk on one of our talk pages so we're not cluttering the deletion discussion with a peripheral argument. And, again, I have to ask you not to say things like "besides just selectively reading and skimming through." You're implying that I've done something that just isn't true. I don't want to discuss this with you if you're going to keep making false assumptions about my motivations. Now, I read as much of the issue as I could. Obviously, the other character involved was not editing very constructively. Blocks were in order. You also made a few edits in your interactions with that user that could have been better. We all do that. After this discussion, I'll probably go back and say, "Hey, I could have said something differently that would have made things go more smoothly." Some of your edits though, seemed to be a bit off even by those standards. If you want to discuss it further, fine. Let's stay calm though. We're both editors in good standing. There's no need for anyone to get riled up or overreact. Chicken Wing (talk) 23:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One role does not notability make. Leave the actor CVs for IMDB. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 01:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As of when this second nomination was made, the movie in which she has the second-billed role (Transporter 3) was still in the top 10 at the box office in North America. The nom seems to be based on a "get hot or go home" mentality in which failure to get another movie role within a month of one's first film coming out means that one has fallen into obscurity. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - True, that is part of my reasoning, but even so, there does not appear to have been any articles about here since, movies or otherwise. If she was a new, aspiring actor, I'm pretty sure one or two newspapers would want to interview her on the subject. Still the article has two sources, failing WP:N(two is not significant), and still does the article fail WP:ENTERTAINER. We don't have articles on every actor who has had one job in the film industry. A single movie does not make a person notable. Wikipedia is not for what ifs. If this person truly is notable, then let's save the creation of the article for when she does meet the criterion.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 23:30, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's just too soon since the last failed afd. maybe renominate it in 6 months or a year if no other sources show up. Theserialcomma (talk) 03:27, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator, she simply is not yet notable and we don't keep articles around in hopes that they one day will become so. JBsupreme (talk) 06:00, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 17:35, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When in Hollywood, Visit Universal Studios. Ask for Babs

a fictional advertising slogan that appears in a number of Landis movies. Some cool trivia but that's about it when it comes to notability Wolfer68 (talk) 06:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The info's already in John Landis (word-for-word) and doesn't need its own article. Graymornings_(talk) 08:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Already covered at John Landis, no need for this trivial page. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:09, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant. Not notable enough independently to warrant a separate article, unlike See You Next Wednesday which has gained sufficient independent notability to justify a separate article. 23skidoo (talk) 17:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and set redirect to John Landis for "Ask for Babs"... the place where it belongs if someone ever searches for the term. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:13, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think a redirect is necessary. Doesn't seem like anyone would search for it. Kinda long. Graymornings_(talk) 22:35, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True, nobody would type in the entire title, but I can see where someone might do a search for "ask for Babs", or click on a link from another article. As they say, redirects are cheap. Mandsford (talk) 23:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Iranian hip hop artists

Delete. Ugh, this is just a long list of completely and utterly non-notable musicians. JBsupreme (talk) 06:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not fond of these either, but once remove redlinks has been applied to it, I don't see why it would be any worse than others. --fvw * 06:28, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, after the redlink cleanup and removing the ones that link to something other than hip hop artists, there are two links left, and I'm not sure either of those would survive an AfD. I do sort of see your point... --fvw * 06:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The whole point of having redlinks in a list is to encourage article creation. And while the nom claims the listed acts are not notable, no evidence to back up that point has been given. (If they checked Iranian sources, I'd like to hear about it in the nom) - Mgm|^(talk) 09:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, useless. Punkmorten (talk) 09:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only three blue links that proably aren't notable either. Hip hop probably isn't that big in Iran, and I can't imagine this list ever growing. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: list of non-notable artists. JamesBurns (talk) 04:29, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The three articles listed should be nominated for deletion as well. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 18:02, 18 December2008 (UTC)
Keep provided basic references are added for the existence/activity of each artist (the full list, without links). Because when the individual articles come up for deletion for insufficient sourcing or notability, we can redirect them here. Completely ignoring Iranian music because most of the references are not in English is just systemic bias. dramatic (talk) 20:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please WP:AGF. There is no evidence that any systemic bias is taking place at all here, you cannot "ignore" sources which do not exist or have not been cited. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 20:45, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, chiming in with MGM and Dramatic. While I really am not a fan of lists, I don't see why this list needs to be deleted. So it's short. So it has entries whose validity (or verifiability) is an issue. That should be an incentive to get to work, IMO, and if I knew any language at all I'd be at it--but Persian is not my forte. Iran is full of Western-culture loving folks, and hip-hop is part of that. And if hip-hop was NOT popular at all over there, dear Hammer, then the very existence of hip-hop acts makes them notable. Ha, a win-win! Drmies (talk) 20:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Or, perhaps, a lose-lose. The choices are between long unsourced list or list with three names. Merge back to Iranian hip hop. Altering it beyond recognition isn't much different than a deletion anyway. Mandsford (talk) 23:55, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the good arguments made here. It's an indiscriminate list, and removing the redlines brings it down to only 3 or so entries, which is clearly not useful for an article. Xihr 06:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How the fuck can you call it indiscriminate when it only has blue links? Juzhong (talk) 09:12, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Because I can read. Xihr 09:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - In my experience en.wikipedians are great at asserting stuff like "I can read" but not very good at demonstrating it. Juzhong (talk) 12:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Please be WP:CIVIL. This is not really an option if you want to continue contributing here. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 18:13, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        What you makes you think I want to spend time with people who don't even attempt to explain their votes? Juzhong (talk) 23:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Perhaps this attitude is exactly why you're getting these kinds of responses. Xihr 06:09, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        ~~Aaah, so you people are thinking say "I don't like this guy's attitude, I won't bother to explain what I mean." You really are scum.~~ Juzhong (talk) 10:14, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In response to Xihr, indiscriminate lists can usually be fixed just by adding more information. At the moment, there is nothing to discriminate between the three blue-links on the list (Farez, Feroo and Sandy) but they could be describe within the article itself. That said, however, I see no reason that these three artists/groups couldn't be mentioned in the parent article. Mandsford (talk) 14:04, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - As the nominator, I don't disagree with what you're saying. I don't think this list can be saved, but if someone disagrees now is the chance to do something about it! Someone, please, be my guest and add some reliable sourced material to this list! Otherwise its going to get roundfiled. Thanks, JBsupreme (talk) 04:31, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - That is not at all what WP:INDISCRIMINATE says. Indiscriminateness is not about the number of elements in the list, it's about the nature of the list. Xihr 06:09, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - See, when you don't explain yourself, no-one knows what you mean. Juzhong (talk) 10:14, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Weird, because I thought when I typed WP:INDISCRIMINATE it meant WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Reading is fun! Have fun with that block. Xihr 10:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Juzhong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been blocked for repeated personal attacks (in this discussion and several others). Just a heads up. JBsupreme (talk) 10:34, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A perfectly valid discriminate list with the standard implied criterion of notability. There should not be any bar on redlinks for notable artists as these list articles that need to be created. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:17, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. And note that it is unreasonable to require editors who are improving an article while it is at AFD to also go fix problems in an external website and threaten the immediate deletion of the article while the external website processes the request to correct their data. TO refer to good faith research bu an editor to ensure that the data they add to an article is accurate as OR is silly. As User:MichaelQSchmidt pointed out, when considering the sources, this article meets the criteria of WP:PEOPLE. I think that effort deserves a WP:Hey. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 04:39, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Ewing

Does not meet WP:BIO, no major roles. --fvw *

Comment With respects, WP:BIO has subsections. The man falls under WP:CREATIVE which he passes with flying colors. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:03, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - I would have given him a Speedy. Notability non-existent. ttonyb1 (talk) 06:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The IMDB link in the original article went to a different person of the same name, which does make it somewhat suspect. --fvw * 06:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Studiedgenius (talk) 07:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)) I apologize that there was a mistake in the IMDB link; the link should be accurate now.[reply]

Although the links has been corrected, the references continue to point to two different people. Bill and also William. As a result I still support my earlier comments for this article. ttonyb1 (talk) 19:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I fixed the double-ref problem. Will look further into notability. Can note that he was co-writer for the award-winning film End of the Spear. There might be more to be found. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I still see the reference to the film Christmas Child. (William Ewing) ttonyb1 (talk) 19:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thought you were referring to the one ref in two places. However, I have also just corrected the filmology. Nice catch. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Major problem with this article as the author seems to have mixed and matched his Bills a few different ways. I have left him a note on his talk page asking just to which Bill he is referring in the article. Until that is cleared up, it will be impossible to properly source the article or determine notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:55, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update Using the ref'd bio, I bactracked and found his correct filmology. IMDB lists his films under "Bill Ewing (I)", "Bill Ewing (II)]" and as "William Ewing". I have corrected the article and now have enough to seek determination of notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow Just found out this is also the same Bill Ewing who did End of the Spear. More stuff for the article. Back soon. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I finished with the major expansion and sourcing. This man does indeed have significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject and so seems now to pass WP:PEOPLE... perhaps not so much as an actor in his early career, but definitely as an acclaimed fimmaker in his current career. There's more to do, but I feel notability has been established. Finally. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as if my opinion were not now obvious. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:02, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My only concern is that we now have multiple IMDB entries supporting this article. ttonyb1 (talk) 04:13, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well (chuckle) we don't, as we only have one article about one person. The problem is IMDB's but can be easily corrected at their end. As I wrote the author about this same concern, I ~~will submit~~ have submitted (12-19-2008) a sourced update/correction to IMDB to have the AKA of William added to Bill (I), and have the entries for Bill (II) and Bill (IV) merged to Bill (I). The multiple entries happend with production companies not adding informations to the proper individual... accurate as they may be in fact. It is more important at the moment to make sure the article properly reflects all the works of this one individual, and once my submission to IMDB is checked and implemented, I will personally make sure the Wiki article is updated to reflect this. Fair enough? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:16, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Combining all those IMDB Bios violates WP:NOR, you'll have to get them to clear it up first. Until then, I'm sticking with delete... --fvw* 08:00, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- To set your mind at ease that I am NOT violating Wiki Policy WP:NOR, please re-read it carefully. The article in question is about the man named William 'Bill' Ewing, the president of Every Tribe Entertainemt. The Dove Foundation biography is of someone named Bill Ewing of Every Tribe Entertainment in which it is confirmed that the man in the biography was crew on Meteor [13], was in Korg 70,000 B.C.[14], wrote and produced The End of the Spear [15], and directed Christmas Child [16]. Being able to connect the dots and then properly place all 4 IMDB names in external links because they are the same person is NOT original research in that it IS NOT original thought, IS attributable to reliable published sources, and IS NOT not a new analysis or synthesis that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources. That I have sent a request for corection/combination of these 4 names to IMDB editors is also not original research, as I have provided them with even greater proofs than I have Wikipedia. I am greatly offended at your statement. Please either strike or retract your accusation that I have violated policy. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:30, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's all take a deep breath...I feel better. I have to say I agree with fvw and I am still sticking with my prior delete. The issue I still have is there are numerous IMDB entries that are being used to support the article and a single person. I cannot confirm they are indeed the same person - we editors are but simple mortals. 8-) If they were combined by IMDB I would probably reverse my delete to a keep. I know this is somewhat frustrating for all involved and I do appreciate all the work you are doing to keep this alive. Good luck... ttonyb1 (talk) 03:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- With respects, I ~~will remove~~ have removed the IMDB external links temporarily, as they do NOT support the article... only act as external links per WP:EL. The article and notability is well supported by the numerous references and sources, and IMDB does not confer notability. A single link will be returned omce IMDB acts to merge their data. Further, if IMDB's multiple listings for one person were of amy concern, they can simply be ignored as IMDB does not assert nor confirm a notability. I am waiting for an aknowledgement of the numerous references and sources from the deletists as ignoring them makes the delete opinions come off as a simple WP:UGH. 2 "keeps" and 2 "deletes" do not make a consensus. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on Michael's work and the refs now in the article. There's also a book at gbooks that calls him the nicest person in Hollywood in passing. "Identifying" two people as the same is something one must do all the time in biographies with common names, and isn't considered OR if the evidence is decisive. How does one know that 2 biographies of George Washington are about the same person, not a pair of identical twins who pretended to be the same person and successfully kept their secret? Usually one presumes that IMDB or any other source wouldn't have multiple articles on the same person, but if one finds enough to identify two subjects beyond reasonable doubt, as appears to be the case, that is OK. There was an AfD a while ago about a Chinese professor who had 4 unlinked pages at Ohio state, but clearly they were the same person, unlike that of what became clear was a different person of the same name at the U of Michigan who worked in a nearby but different field. There was a recent thread at the OR noticeboard about the much more difficult case of chains of synonymous words, where I think complete equality was thought sufficient; since people are much more sharply defined than words, either the same or different, the problem is a lot easier.John Z (talk) 22:35, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per MQS's comments (he said it best...and first!). Ecoleetage (talk) 23:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per John Z. John254 02:04, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Parakeet (faraquet 7")

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Parakeet (faraquet 7")

Sub-stubs on 7" singles. No assertation of notability besides being by Faraquet whose own notability is in question. Qualifiers in titles make for unlikely redirect terms. One of these is also a split EP with a red link band. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 05:45, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all: Fails WP:MUSIC. Schuym1 (talk) 00:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all: non-notable songs, as per WP:MUSIC. JamesBurns (talk) 04:38, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 01:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dressed to Kill (book)

An entire article devoted to what appears to be criticism of an theory not widely documented or accepted, additionally, the book does not seem to have much objective coverage to be notable enough for inclusion. I'll also note the article is currently unbalanced and if sledged for balance, only a stub would remain. A stub with the above fringe and notability problems withstanding. Please consider deletion based on the above rationale. Thank you for your time, NonvocalScream (talk) 04:34, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The fact alone that the American Cancer Society has responded to this book's claims on their web site. The theories which are presented in the book are definitely WP:FRINGEy, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't have an article on the book. (We have plenty of articles on fringe-science topics. There's nothing wrong with them, so long as they present a balanced viewpoint of their topics.) Zetawoof_(ζ) 04:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable nonsense. Fulfills WP:FRINGE, in that mainstream sources have referenced (debunked) it (e.g. Scientific American, the American Cancer Society). It saddens me that this ridiculousness has reached the level that it requires official debunking, but them's the facts. The article could use a good cleansing of poor content, crappy promotional sources affiliated with the subject, and perhaps even some agenda-driven editors, but the book is notable. MastCell ^Talk 05:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not sufficient published sources for this utterly non-notable book. The ACS describes the theory as an intenet rumor. TYhey are essentially obliged to dubunk everything they see, but we ignore the non-notable. Possibly there might be an article on the hypothesis, but it would be better to mention it in an article. As is, it's a drastic violation of fringe and undueweight. DGG (talk) 07:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't endorse this book, but it's out there and it had enough impact that breast cancer and other health organizations include responses to it. We have included these responses to bring needed balance. And removing this from Wikipedia won't help people who are researching this topic. Fringe? yes. But demonstrably notable. Mattnad (talk) 10:13, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:19, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:19, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not even close to WP:FRINGE, which requires some sort of following. Completely non-notable. Not even worth half a mention in breast cancer. —G716 <^T· See my new opinion below—G716 <^T·_C> 20:38, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

_C> 11:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, looking at google books [17] we can see a large number of works discussing the topic, so this is actually a widely documented theory. In particular we have ""well-known, reliable, and independent sources which discuss the theory", the ACS and Scientific America. Apparently 6.2% of US adults believe the theory, according to Prevalence and sociodemographic correlates of beliefs regarding cancer risks Juzhong (talk) 12:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...and four million Americans have been abducted by aliens—G716 <^T·_C> 14:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...and Wikipedia has an article on Alien abduction. I agree it's pseudo-science, but that on its own doesn't seem to disqualify it for inclusion in Wikipedia.Mattnad (talk) 16:34, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The content of the book is irrelevant. The article shows sufficient sources to satisfy notability. If there is an issue with how the article is approached, that's a content issue and has nothing to do with AFD. WP:NOTCENSORED so the subject matter of the book, or its point of view, mean nothing with regards to its viability as an article. 23skidoo (talk) 17:19, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the book's content, as stated, is irrelevant. We measure notability based on the coverage from reliable third parties, which this appears to have plenty of. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 18:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The book, however nonsensical, is notable. LinguistAtLarge 20:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep Wow that is some serious stupid. Mastcell more or less summarizes things well. DGG is not completely correct here because some of the sources are not in the business of debunking every little fringe idea. In particular, Scientific American does not generally do this. We have multiple reliable sources. The article should of course reflect WP:UNDUE but that is not a reason for deletion. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:43, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd be really happy if a few of these 'keep' editors here would put this article on their watchlist. It's not a high-traffic page, but it is POV bait, and it feels like the same people are always reverting the same kinds of edits. (The IP address from the authors' home town, for example, has a particular way they want to spin the husband's dropping out, or being forced out, of all those grad school programs.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:41, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Amen to that. Watchlist it, my fellow editors. MastCell ^Talk 22:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Would it help to turn it into an article about the theory, not the book? Juzhong (talk) 23:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't think that it would make the least bit of difference. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Dressed to Kill: The Link Between Breast Cancer and Bras, its complete title, as Dressed to Kill is also a 1952 novel by Peter Cheyney. There are also several other books with titles starting with "Dressed to Kill" as well... ultimately hinting at the potential need for a dab page. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 23:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant keep. No matter how "wrong" or "incorrect" the book may be, there is no doubt that it has attracted widespread attention from independent, reliable sources (including USA Today last week). WP:UNDUE concerns can be dealt with by focusing on media reaction to the book; "POV bait" concerns can be addressed with due diligence (with the occasional semiprotection should the editing heat rise). IP's points above are well-taken as there are other books with the title Dressed to Kill - move to complete name per IP and dabify this page. B.Wind (talk) 04:40, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Criticism of "Dressed to Kill: The Link Between Breast Cancer and Bras". If we do that, I will take a serious attempt to clean up this article—G716 <^T·_C> 20:38, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that may not happen, but in the meantime, please consider contributing. Regards. Mattnad (talk) 12:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but do NOT rename. It is a book about a controversial topic, and criticism is therefore to be expected. JFW | T@lk 13:56, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Cirt (talk) 01:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tinker's Christmas Radio Drama

Not sure which WP:* this falls under, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't fulfil the criteria therein. --fvw * 04:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this article should be deleted. After cleaning it up, wikifying, and citing some sources it should be pretty good, although it does seem to be an advertisement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ElectricRush (talk • contribs)

That's the problem. There don't seem to be any sources. Also please sign your posts. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 05:11, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:34, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not finding many references for this book/radio drama. The book has only a single brief review in The Midwest Book Review and I'm not finding any sources for the radio drama version. If there were some indication that this program had aired more widely it might be notable but it appears that it's of regional interest at best and has not received significant interest from verifiable sources. This all may be moot anyway because the article appears to have copyright issues. --Rtphokie (talk) 12:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: article fails to establish notability. JamesBurns (talk) 07:19, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (moved from main AFD log) First allow me to say, while I am not a regular to posting to Wikipedia, I am a regular user of Wikipedia. Thus I assume then that I am a Wikipedian. If this is not the case, please accept my apologies. I am the author of Tinker's Christmas. the book and the radio drama, as well as the author/originator of the post of "Tinker's Christmas the Radio Drama," on the Author's Den web site, where it was apparently picked up by Wikipedia. If I own the copyright to the book and the radio drama and am the originator of the post, I do not understand from where the concern regarding copyright infringement comes. As I stated in my previous explanation, I was both surprised and honored to see the listing on Wikipedia when alerted by Google that it had been listed. Thus in light of this information, does the debate re copyright infringement serve a purpose for this particular post? Thank you. Sjcworks (talk) 13:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)Sandra Jones CropseySjcworks (talk) 13:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moved here from daily log. — neuro^(talk) 15:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: like --Rtphokie (talk) --Tamás Kádár (talk) 16:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above. --Bobak (talk) 19:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:19, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lovesick (Rihanna song)

"Lovesick is going to be first official single from Rihanna's next upcoming studio album". The "upcoming album" was deleted over a dozen times, with four AfDs I'm aware of. This song has even less verifiable information.
Fails WP:MUSIC, WP:CRYSTAL, WP:VERIFIABILITY, WP:NOTE. Amalthea 03:34, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with all of the above, except I prefer the WP:BALL redirect. Delete. --fvw* 03:39, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If we had anything to verify that this is actually going to be a Rihanna song then yes, it should be redirected. The only thing we have though is the file sharing link in the article, and I didn't find anything else to verify it either. --Amalthea 04:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  Either that, or you just prefer WP:BALL over WP:CRYSTAL, in which case I'll just go and facepalm myself now. :) --Amalthea 07:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly fails WP:BALL and WP:NM. No confirmation that the song will actually be release, let alone be a single. DiverseMentality 06:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No verifiability to the claims made about the song. – Alex43223^{T | C | E} 07:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:14, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Tavix (talk) 21:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per A9 if possible. Otherwise delete ASAP, per above. Ward3001 (talk) 19:50, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:19, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If (Bananarama song)

Fails notability per WP:SONG. Promo release in France only, even this promo release was extremely limited. Paul75 (talk) 03:16, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:13, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 18:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete---not only per nom, but also per the article itself, which denies its own reason for existence. Drmies (talk) 20:58, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bananarama discography. Totnesmartin (talk) 22:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-plausible search term, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 05:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:18, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Swjiz Sjet

WP:NOTADVERTISING and not notable per Wikipedia:Notability (books) -- Rick Block (talk) 02:48, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article doesn't describe notability of subject. TheFeds 06:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:12, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Could not locate any sources to allow article to pass the requirements of WP:BK Captain-tucker (talk) 14:03, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of notability, no references in the article or available on gooogle. HeureusementIci (talk) 20:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as a hoax. bibliomaniac 1 5 04:16, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brazilian copperfish

Hoax, per Wikipedia:RDS#Brazilian_copperfish and the anons who edited it earlier today. --fvw * 02:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as well as searching FishBase, I have also googled under both its alleged English-language name and its alleged Portuguese-language name, and apart from mirrors of wp, and some blog-type sites, I have found nothing about this fish. Googling the alleged biologist who "discovered" it turns up a high school student in Lebanon, USA, and it is to be noted that the original creator of the article has also edited the wp entry for this place. I can find no reference to a subfamily "Kurbanus" on FishBase or elsewhere, and sharp-eyed editors may have already noticed the last four letters of that word, which, taken with the evidence I have outlined above, are also suggestive of a hoax. DuncanHill (talk) 02:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Additional have now also tried Encyclopedia of Life, and cannot find it there either. DuncanHill (talk) 02:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Subfamily: Kurbanus, named after Michael Kurban?! - Delete. — Sebastian 02:43, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A staple of Brazilian cuisine, and it had to wait until 1936 to get recognized? That smells fishy. Also, the picture sure looks like a photoshop montage. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obvious hoax.Redddogg (talk) 02:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per all of above. Still, despite the giveaways a fairly admirable job. JNW (talk) 02:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only non-WP-based online mention of peixes de cobre seems to be a Google Books hit for a Portuguese dictionary of modern painting, describing surrealistic elements in the work of the Italian painter Carlo Carrà. Deor (talk) 03:28, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I know the person who created this as a hoax, and its a shame that some websites took it for real —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.95.49.236 (talk) 04:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 17:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ohio Grade Level Chess Championships

Per WP:ORG. There must be thousands of these, all wonderful, but all exactly the same. --fvw * 01:55, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just isnt notable enough. The Locke (talk) 02:12, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't see state level scholastic competitions as notable. TerriersFan (talk) 02:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable. Bubba73 (talk), 02:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep seems moderately notable per Google [18], [19], [20]. JJL (talk) 02:40, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ (changed to Weak Delete, see below) - below notability. For people in chess, junior events don't count for notability, and I believe the case similar in other sports too (e.g. soccer requires at least one senior league game to be played). In chess, we bend the rules for truly exceptional cases (such as World Junior Champions), because they are virtually guaranteed of senior success in the future anyway. Now, for events, rather than people, the threshold is a little lower, e.g. The Australian Junior Championship is listed (at Australian Chess Championship#Australian Junior Champions), but the champions themselves aren't automatically notable. So... does this Ohio teams' championship pass this lower threshold? I believe not. It is a state junior championship, which is a level down from a national junior championship. In short, I believe a list of national junior champions is notable; I believe a list of state champions is not notable. So while I can't point to a specific guideline, I think the notability of the event (in world chess terms) is low enough that we should delete, otherwise we're opening the floodgates to thousands of statewide junior events across the world. The google hits don't change this - lots of minor junior sports results can be found on Google, that doesn't make them notable. Peter Ballard (talk) 03:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It does if they meet WP:N. Not sure this one does (see weak keep below), but "OTHERTHINGSEXIST and will flood us" not a policy-based reason for deletion... Hobit (talk) 06:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment - Oops, I didn't notice that there were individual championships as well. This raises notability, but not enough. I've removed the words above on "teams", but my comments on individual events (which were already there) still point to a "delete" from me. Peter Ballard (talk) 03:48, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Replying to Hobit) I understand, but I'm trying to work out how to evaluate this one in the absence of a clear guideline. Does WP:ORG really cover sports/games competitions? I'd like to see a more specific guideline. Peter Ballard (talk) 23:03, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say in the face of an unclear guideline, WP:N is what we use. I think this case is borderline given the sources found to date, but I strongly suspect more local news sources exist. Hobit (talk) 00:37, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ATHLETE was presumably formulated to give a guide so that AfDs of sports people were handled consistently; and I was hoping for something similar for sports competitions. While the winners are clearly non-notable per WP:ATHLETE (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Clayton (chess player)), I can see that the competition itself is bordering on notable. I've changed my assessment (above) to weak delete. Peter Ballard (talk) 01:12, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per WP:N. [21], [22]. Not great, but multiple, independent, secondary sources. Hobit (talk) 06:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Peter Ballard Voorlandt (talk) 14:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Peter Ballard SyG (talk) 22:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Per the sources referenced above passes basic notability guidelines. Also, I think there could only be 50 other events like this at most, not thousands. There's only so many states in the US that can hold chess championships. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 23:43, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there are thousands of other potential events, not just 50. I'll leave you to work out why. Peter Ballard (talk) 00:18, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring specifically to state-wide scholastic chess championships in the United States. I wasn't trying to make a rude comment, which it appears you have conceived it as. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 00:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK, I'll put it down to a misunderstanding. In any case, there are similar comparable competitions worldwide, even if they're not called scholastic. Peter Ballard (talk) 01:12, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I don't think every state holds a state competition, but I know some states have multiple such competetions a year, so there probably are quite an amount of similar tournaments. However, there are several local sources referencing the tournament. I personally read about it in the Chagrin Valley times, a paper in Chagrin Falls and from google I can see other sources like the Toledo Blade. I also found various school websites with articles referring to the tournament (Hawken School, University School, Shaker Heights HS) This gives it some notability. 11kowrom 02:17, 19 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 11kowrom (talk • contribs)

Comment from creator (presumably Keep) - I believe this page is notable because there are several outside sources referring to the tournament. It is one of the largest chess tournaments in Ohio and is the largest scholastic tournament in Ohio. Many prominant schools compete in the tournament as well. Lorty2 (talk) 02:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(This was posted on the article's talk page by the article's creator and I am reposting it here.)ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]

My own view is that it doesn't meet the inclusion guidelines. I would say Delete ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with Peter Ballard that the guidelines are not completely clear for sporting competitions; however simple logic would decree that if the players themselves are not notable, then a competition between them is ipso facto, not notable. Brittle heaven (talk) 09:41, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete G11. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shore Total Office - Office Cubicles & Furniture

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Shore Total Office - Office Cubicles & Furniture

per WP:CORP --fvw * 01:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G11. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:52, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Too much like an advertisement. Sorry... ttonyb1 (talk) 02:58, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (G11) as spam. MuZemike (talk) 03:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy close This is one of the strangest... Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:48, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fiskartorpet

Now, dont say i gonna g-6 delete it, Ok? Lack of notability, i think. Its my article, i dont want it deleted but i understand it maybe needs to be deleted anyway. The Rolling Camel (talk) 01:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're nominating your own article? That's ... interesting. I think as it stands it's a delete, but if you have some local newspaper articles about the area you could add as references it'd be ok. --fvw * 01:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 02:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Despite the unconventional case of the article creator being the AfD nom, the Swedish Wikipedia Fiskartorpet article that's been in existence since August 2007 is extensive and appears sourced. I'm going to try to find more info on it and do some Wikifying time permitted. --Oakshade (talk) 03:04, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Oakshade analysis. Here is an automatic translation of the Swedish article. LinguistAtLarge 20:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep! Nothing wrong with it, just needs words and sources. The place is plenty notable, as the Swedish entry bears out. I think the nominator and the author of the article should meet outside after school and fight this out. I'm rooting for the author. Drmies (talk) 21:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, the nominator and the author is the same! The author taked it here because he was afraid it didnt pass the notability guidelines. The Rolling Camel (talk) 22:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close - This isn't what AfD is for. Stub tag it and see what happens. No reason to have this discussion unless someone other than the author initiates it. --Onorem ♠Dil 23:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted as G11. Jclemens (talk) 02:58, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trailhead Church

Probably very close to an A7, but because churches, like schools create discussion, I've brought it here. Simply put, Trailhead launched in September of 2008 and there's no evidence of notability just confirmation of existence. StarM 01:34, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 01:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 01:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, though WP:CHURCH says it can be rescued with references. --fvw * 01:52, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Happy ^Holidays 01:19, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Clayton (chess player)

I'm not sure if this falls under A7, though it likely does, so I'll propose this for deletion under the fact that it fails the general inclusion guideline.

Author's comments are here. - NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 01:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unless there is particular media coverage, I regard chess players as having to reach Grandmaster to become notable or being an International Master together with another notable feature; as a coach or writer for example. Certainly winning state grade championships falls well short. I would also add that I see nothing notable about the page Ohio Grade Level Chess Championships. TerriersFan (talk) 01:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and I'm afding Ohio Grade Level Chess Championships. --fvw * 01:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 02:04, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - See WP:ATHLETE - in sports, junior events don't give players notability. We take the same approach in chess - junior events don't give notability, except for truly exceptional prodigies like World Junior Champions. A national junior champion doesn't qualify, a state junior champion (as in this case) is another level below again. Peter Ballard (talk) 03:52, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 18:03, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing coming up from Google. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 23:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:ATHLETE. Schuym1 (talk) 00:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete speedy, obviously fails any notability. SyG (talk) 23:09, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:16, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How to read Donald Duck

Original research no secondary sources save for one review. A search for the English and Spanish titles turned up very little information. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 01:19, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. A classic essay in South American politics. Not too many hits indeed; however, this source alone establishes more than enough notability for this book. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 02:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 02:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Juzhong (talk) 05:28, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, where were you searching? Try google scholar, google news archive, and maybe the Encylopedia Britannica next time. Juzhong (talk) 05:11, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Google news search. Just needs a clean up though and more third party citations. Michellecrisp (talk) 06:55, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Juzhong and Michellecrisp. SMSpivey (talk) 10:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. StarM 05:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Rocket to the Moon

Fails WP:MUSIC. Only releases are three EPs, no actual album, no reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 01:14, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 02:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all: Fails WP:MUSIC. Schuym1 (talk) 00:17, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all: could not find verifiable 3rd party sources, as per WP:MUSIC. JamesBurns (talk) 04:25, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 05:40, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn per WP:HEY. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:13, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Burger School for Students with Autism

Absolutely no sources found. 100 hits on Google, nothing useful in Google News. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 01:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Garden City School District#Special schools. Absolutely no reason to delete. TerriersFan (talk) 02:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 02:06, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a high school since it includes a secondary program. -- Eastmain (talk) 02:34, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 02:35, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note:: I just reworded it to remove unsourced material that contradicts official statements and to add statements supporting notability, including largest such school in the United States. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 06:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep revised version - clearly notable, largest such school in the United States. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 06:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clear claim to notability as the largest school in the US for autistic children and several other distinguishing features. TerriersFan (talk) 17:58, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep upon reading the article (originally I had expected something else). coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 18:03, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. As the author of the article articulated well here, the subject of the article has been established to be notable, in that numerous independent sources are available to demonstrate that it has been covered adequately to satisfy WP:N. That the list will require effort to maintain is both true, and as pointed out here, not likely to be a huge burden, as the data has not changed in several years according to the references. That the list is too narrow is simply not valid, in that lists are required to have strictly defined inclusion criteria (WP:LIST). That the list will not grow is probably valid, but there is no criteria for deletion that requires lists to be unfinished. In fact, in this debate, the same people seemed to try to require the article to be both more complete and yet want it deleted becuase it might not grow. Some editors here do not trust some of the data in the article and feel that there are factual errors; this is the very nature of a wiki, and should be assumed for every article in the project. Should the article be renamed? Probably... but that is a job for the talk page of the article, not AFD, to address. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 04:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of most-listened-to radio programs

Overly narrow list, may never grow beyond this. What qualifies as "most listened-to" anyway? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 01:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uhhhh, the same as most watched TV show, most downloaded song, most read newspaper, its not magic, its called Arbitron, which is says in the article. See other articles in the category. How would you expect it to be less narrow? include the "least listened to" and "moderate listened to"? or were you expecting it to include other media, like magazines and newspapers and television? These have their own articles. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Question, since we have the author here, is this a stub? Or is this a misnomer, and should it have been a list for 2005 only? Drmies (talk) 01:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is a stub and the data is from 2005-2008, and things haven't changed much in those years. I don't think the top five have changed since Howard Stern dropped of the list. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 02:06, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 02:06, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete This is going to be much harder to maintain than lists of the most popular movie, tv shows, music, etc. Rankings are readily available for these from sources like Variety (magazine), Billboard (magazine), etc. Arbitron doesn't publish radio lists so readily, and not on a national level. What is readily available from sources like Radio & Records focuses on station rankings, not shows. You'll sometimes find listenership numbers in articles about Limbaugh or All Things Considered but those are essentially estimates. Arbitron doesn't publish books. Also Arbitron is in the business of providing marketing data so data for non-commerical stations like NPR stations is even spottier. Radio Research Consortium fills in some of that gap but show level data is equally hard to come by there as well. Even the stories in your local paper about which local radio stations are #1, #2 and so on are generally based on press releases from the stations themselves, not directly on the data from Arbitron. I just dont think this article has much of a chance of being maintained to a sufficient level. Even sources like Talkers Magazine are based on samplings of Arbitron data.--Rtphokie (talk) 02:43, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment We don't need to see the direct Arbitron data, just someone quoting the data. That is the basis of verifiability from a reliable source. The New York Times or National Public Radio quoting that data is a reliable source for the data. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:27, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As Arbitron does not directly publish national ratings, this is a bit more challenging to create, but the article is backed by ample reliable and verifiable sources. We have plenty of corresponding lists of television programs and films, and the only surprising thing is that this article did not exist before. If this could be accomplished in three hours before AfD, imagine what could be accomplished with a few more weeks of development. Alansohn (talk) 02:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Could you point to some of those verifiable sources?--Rtphokie (talk) 02:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - You could read the article, but here's what I found there:
    1. ^ a b c "Top Radio Host Shifts Blame as Advertiser, Radio Network Drop Show", Media Matters (July 22, 2008). Retrieved on 17 December 2008. "The Savage Nation reaches at least 8.25 million listeners each week, according to Talkers Magazine, making it one of the most listened-to talk radio shows in the nation, behind only The Rush Limbaugh Show and The Sean Hannity Show."
    2. ^ a b c "Latest top host figures", Talkers magazine (2005). Retrieved on 17 December 2008. "The new figures are in and Talkers magazine’s Fall 2005 estimates of the weekly cume ratings and rankings of the nation’s most listened-to radio talk show hosts, based on Spring 2005 local market Arbitron reports and other factors, indicate that the industry has remained relatively stable since the prior bi-annual report released earlier this year."
    3. ^ "'Listener Supported' and 'NPR': All Things Considered", New York Times (2005). Retrieved on 17 December 2008. "National Public Radio alone reaches more than 20 million listeners, and its daily newsmagazine shows, All Things Considered and Morning Edition, attract a larger audience than any program except Rush Limbaugh's."
    4. ^ "NPR Programs Attract Record-Breaking Audiences Public Radio Listenership at All-Time High", National Public Radio (2002). Retrieved on 17 December 2008. "Reflective of the intense news cycle following the September 11 terrorist attacks on the U.S., NPR's newsmagazines and talk programs increased audiences across the board. From Fall 2000 to Fall 2001, Morning Edition® with Bob Edwards jumped from 10.7 to 13 million listeners; All Things Considered® grew from 9.8 million to nearly 11.9 million; Talk of the Nation® rocketed 40.8 percent to 3 million listeners; Fresh Air® with Terry Gross grew 25.4 percent to nearly 4.2 million and The Diane Rehm Show grew 38.6 percent to nearly 1.4 million. Growth in the NPR news/talk audience outpaced similar gains realized by commercial news/talk radio."
  - Not a bad start, to say the least. Alansohn (talk) 03:04, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pointless minutiae. Why is the list just for 2005? If the list could be expanded into something a bit more worthwhile, it would be a justified article. Paul75 (talk) 03:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is 2000 United States Census pointless too? It is the most uptodate population data, and it is 5 years older than the earliest Arbitron data I cite. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have yet to answer my and Paul75's question. Thank you. (Radio programs and the census have a slightly different level of importance, in the grand scheme of things; this is not a very good comparison.) Drmies (talk) 04:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think its an excellent comparison. When you say something isn't important, you aren't speaking for the world, just yourself. It is the ultimate in subjectiveness. We have two million articles and only maybe 5,000 or 10,000 were important enough for me to read. Importance is not a criteria for Wikipedia, just notability and verifiability. It meets both criteria. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:32, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The true list of most-listened-to radio programs is liable to change every day and the sources are out of date. It's relevant to having a list of yesterday's most watched TV programs under the title "List of most-watched tv programs". The list also borders on being trivia. Some sort of well-referenced list of most popular (or greatest etc....) radio programs of all time might be more appropriate. Themfromspace (talk) 04:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have a crystal ball, and since it hasn't changed during 2005-2008, it isn't likely to change unless one of the hosts of the syndicated show dies and the franchise dies with them. The top show hasn't changed since the ratings started being kept in 1991. Saying "[it] is liable to change every day", is original research and crystalballing. I think that you are confusing, most popular local radio stations with most-listened-to radio programs. Only a nationally syndicated show can reach the numbers needed to topple one of the top shows. And why would it be any more volatile than the list of top movies, which changes every year. The wealthiest people also changes. Come to think of it, every Wikipedia article changes when new information comes along. What exact Wikipedia rule appears to be violated? Remember the Wikipedia rule, "once notable, always notable". --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How can you say it hasn't changed since 2005? (Do you have evidence? There's nothing in the article that makes that claim.) On TV, Olberman's show is now giving O'Reilly a run for his money. And besides, why would this list NOT change if, as you say yourself, the list of top movies or richest people changes? That makes no sense to me, that the popularity of radio shows would NOT change. And so the data you present is outdated, or the title is incorrect--especially given The Feds' comment below. (BTW, do you accept NPR's numbers on the ratings of their own shows as independent authority?) Drmies (talk) 15:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your asking the wrong person, when you ask me why the ranking doesn't change from year to year, it just doesn't change much. I guess it would be called a "mature market". The top program has been number one since the records were kept in 1991. Not believing the references is another issue, but I doubt all the references could be wrong. Maybe that is a good reason for keeping the article, since it appears to have educated you about something you did not know. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:36, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I asked you no such question. I asked you how you can say that. And I find it funny that you can make such strong claims here when you can't make them in the article. Then again, seeing how you continually misrepresent my arguments and my questions, I shouldn't be surprised. Drmies (talk) 23:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Independence is used to determine notability, not accuracy. The NPR web site telling me they are important enough to be included in Wikipedia is not enough, but information from their site can be used as facts in an article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Information, sure--but I would not accept NPR's numbers on their popularity anymore than I would accept Fox's numbers on their own shows. It's hardly independent. Drmies (talk) 20:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point to a specific Wikipedia policy on the requirement to not use facts from a company's own website, or say an autobiography as a source for Wikipedia. If you have contradictory information, by all means, add it and change the order. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are deliberatly obfuscating. First of all, I never said that I had contradicting evidence. That is not my point. Second, it's plain old common sense that one does not automatically believe what a radio station claims about its listenership (or what any company or government says about its solvency or approval ratings--do I have to argue this point?). Do you need a policy to tell you that? A little browsing around in the WP:notability section would quickly lead you to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and it's obvious that that applies here, I hope; to Wikipedia:Verifiability, which applies here because one of the NPR references claims that "according to recent reports is the third most listened radio show in the country" without giving a source; and finally Wikipedia:Independent sources. So, common sense and Wikipedia policy, here in perfect agreement.

If you are paranoid over sourcing, you will love the article on GNP, the rankings come from the CIA and the World Bank. And please don't just point to Wikipedia:Verifiability or Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, its like saying go look in the bible or look it up in a law book. Quote me a chapter and verse or a specific court case, nothing is obvious. Wikipedia:Independent sources is personal essay, and not Wikipedia policy. Cheers. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if that's too much reading. You asked for specific policies, I gave them to you. I've done enough work for you already. Yes, the last is an personal essay, and so what? it's meaningless? It's on the WP site, isn't it? I don't see your haphazard way of writing and sourcing and titling endorsed anywhere. Perhaps you can point me to a policy where it says that title and article don't have to have anything to do with each other, or a policy that states that it's perfectly fine to accept anything someone says, especially if they say it about themselves; you know, a possible WP:Dependent sources. Oh, how about a policy that says "most listened to in the US" means "most listened to in the world." I don't understand your stubbornness. Why not just rename the article? Why not make a table including all these years and the numbers you have for them? Why not have a disclaimer for the one or two numbers that have not been independently established? Why would you continue to purposely misunderstand your fellow WP editors? Why can't you seem to understand basic concepts like verifiability, consistency, independence? They seem to be essential to writing an encyclopedic article. "Paranoid about sources"? This is an encyclopedia, not a chat room. Drmies (talk) 20:16, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is just not useful to say I am violating a law, then hand me a law book and ask me to find some law I am violating. Cite a page in a law book or a case number. Both Notability and Verifiability have numbered rules just for this purpose. As to the essay, I have a user page in Wikipedia, that doesn't mean I am notable and encyclopedic, just because it is in Wikipedia. All your arguments have nothing to do with deleting the article but concern things best discussed on the talk page. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:06, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now, before you go and say that I should go and replace or edit this or that, let me state again--that is not my point. I'm not saying that NPR is lying about their numbers, or that they're wrong, or whatever. Besides, your proposal that I go and change the order has to be facetious, since you claim that the sources reveal that nothing, nothing has changed in three or four years. Oh, one last thing--the article says "weekly listeners in 2008," right? How can sources in 2005 and even 2002 reveal anything about 2008? At some point you have to own up to a basic confusion here: the title claims timelessness though the article does not; the article claims 2008 though some of the sources are old; the title claims geographic neutrality whereas the article specifies US listenership. Seriously.

But I've said enough. Some of the nay-sayers in this AfD have raised similar points; some of the yea-sayers have too (and some seem not to have noticed these problems). If I can't explain matters of neutrality or objectivity or contradiction to you via an appeal to Wikipedia policy or to anything else, then I have little more to say except for good luck. Drmies (talk) 23:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Has your argument now become that I have too many sources? That showing data from 1991, 2005 and 2008 is too much data, and just the most recent 2008 data needs to be shown? Or that the top shows from the 1950s are not included like Jack Benny. It still isn't clear to me what you are arguing for or against. I need something concrete. Or is your argument that the article needs to be deleted because you don't like the title. Or, are you asking for some sort of matrix that shows each show as a line, and the ranking of that show for every year from 1991-2008, like an Excel spreadsheet? Again, if you have contradictory sources that say the ranking is different, add the sources and change the ranking. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:06, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Read the references from 2005 and the reference from 2008 that has the same order. If you have information on Olberman, add it to the article. This is about deletion, not details, if you have better references use them. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that you do not understand what I am saying, or do not want to understand. Olberman's show is a TV show; it's an example. Specifically, it's an example of how the list (at least in its present form) makes little sense. If 'nothing has changed' in three years, shouldn't the article reflect that? Why does one have to plow through the references to find out that the data have not changed since 2005, and therefore the title is rational? Deletion is in the details, in some ways--the article and its references do not prove that this is a notable or doable topic. As others (above and below this exchange) have commented, the information in the article is dated and US-centric, whereas the title is general. And such a general title makes no sense: how does the best-listened to program stack up against its counterpart in China, or Russia?

As the article shows, radio show popularity, unlike TV shows, don't change from week to week, and changes very little from year to year. The number one show hasn't changed since at least 1991. It is still number one in 2008. Peek at the references. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But I think I've said enough, or really, that I've said the same thing often enough. You have not addressed some serious issues I and other editors have with the article, and many of those problems come from the title. I haven't voted yet, since I was hoping for a rationale and an idea as to the article's purpose and scope, and I haven't seen it--I've only seen problems. Delete. Drmies (talk) 18:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not liking the title is a matter for the discussion page and is not a reason for deletion. Deletion has to be based on notability and verifiability. Remember this isn't a vote. It is notable because the topic is brought up in Talkers magazine, and the New York Times, and at National Public Radio. The multiple sources used make the information verifiable. The data comes from Talkers and Arbitron, and is quoted in the New York Times, and at National Public Radio. Arguments for deletion based on the best title, and whether data from China and Russia should be used are red herrings. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:24, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, they make some of the information verifiable. I never said it didn't. It's just that the article/list is poorly written and conceived, and esp. the poor conception is what bothers me. Others are bothered by the purposelessness of it. And China and Russia, that's no red herring, but then, you really don't seem to realize that there is more than one country in the world, and that other countries have radio stations too. You wrote the article, you should have come up with a reasonable title. Oh, one more time, data about National Public Radio comes from National Public Radio? That's about as objective as your voting 'keep' on your own article. Drmies (talk) 20:16, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, now you have stated something more concrete. You are saying the article "is poorly written". Is it the grammar or the spelling that is bothering you? All can be fixed if you point out the errors. And I apologize for any errors like that. As for "concept", in Wikipedia we call that "Notability". The concept has to be notable, I can't write about things that other people have not yet taken notice of. But that is covered by the ample references in the article. The New York Times, several books, and Talkers magazine all discuss the concept that one radio show has to be more listened to than another. The earliest reference used comes from 1971. And though the 1930's and 1940's people like Jack Benny and Fred Allen claimed to have the "top radio show". Doesn't that show that the concept is notable? Other reference works recognize the concept, even if they use a synonym. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:30, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- One more time: If you have information that there are radio shows in Russia and China that have a larger audience please add that information. Is it possible? Sure, but Wikipedia is based on verifiable facts not the abstract "truth". Do the research, find the facts. If you don't think autobiographies and corporate websites should be used as reliable sources, by all means argue that at Wikipedia:Verifiabilty. Verifiabilty is an excellent topic for discussion at that page. Is it possible the sneaky liberals are making up the numbers at NPR, and at the New York Times? If they are, then find some more reliable source that contradicts them. But don't just complain about the sources I used, do the research to show the numbers are wrong. If you want to convince me, show me a fact that I have wrong and show me an alternate source for that fact, and I will fix it and we can change the ranking. Is the ranking for one of the shows upsetting you? Are you upset about the ranking of NPR over another show? Be very specific, I keep adding more references for each fact, but I don't think that is the problem, it seems to be something your having trouble expressing. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:01, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, I am confused, what does the Olberman's show on TV have to do with the article? Can you explain it a little better. If you don't like the title, please feel free to change it. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was making the point that things change over the course of three years; the article and the title suggest they don't. Drmies (talk) 20:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Every Wikipedia article changes when new information comes along, if you have info that contradicts, or is newer, please post it and change the ranking. If what you say was policy, we couldn't have information on any living people. When they die their status changes, and even when they live, they stubbornly continue to do things that upset the stasis of their biography. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:39, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you don't seem to be able to understand what I'm saying. I thought I said it plainly enough. Your title, your list, your sources do not a coherent whole make. "If what you say was policy..."? What did I say? Wait--don't answer that. Drmies (talk) 23:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand your argument, the rankings will someday change so this article will not be valid in the future. My argument is that every articles changes as new information is generated. People die, people do new notable things and their biographies have to be rewritten to reflect the changes. Rankings of metrics for every country have to be changed every year. On the contrary, the top show in the list hasn't changed in 17 years. How is this article different? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you don't understand my argument. That's OK. Drmies (talk) 15:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, I don't ... you have some fuzzy dislike for the article that you can't express well enough for me to make any changes to please you. I guess it boils down to "I don't like it", and there is nothing I can do to help with that.

Maybe your not worried about the future, is it the past that is bothering you? That the list isn't showing historical top programs like the Jack Benny Show? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:32, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What show are you talking about? Is that reference supposed to be an insult? Drmies (talk) 20:16, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You find Jack Benny insulting? Since you can't express well what you dislike about the article, I am pointing out the weaknesses I see in the article, hoping you will have a eureka moment, and say "yes, that is it", that is what I was trying to express. Your dislike for the article is fuzzy, and other than not liking the references to NPR being a top show, I can't change what you can't express in concrete terms. Maybe that show rubs you the wrong way. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:14, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can express that very well, thank you very much--it's just that you can't read very well, neither my comments nor WP policy. (BTW, look at the first sentence of your response: you might study quotation marks. It's that fuzziness that makes your arguments inherently weak.) I dislike fuzzy articles. I dislike articles that are called "most-listened-to radioshows" when they only mention shows in one little part of the world, and only take one tiny segment of the history of radio. You should have called it "List of most-listened to radio shows in the US between 2005 and 2008," and that points out pretty quickly how pointless this is. I don't care about radio in China, I care about your article having a correct title. I don't care for Jack Benny (dude, I have no idea who that is--well before my time, probably), but I want data in WP to be accurate. That I only listen to NPR (yes, you misread that also in one of your earlier comments--how could you infer that I don't like NPR?) does not mean that I should believe their reports on their own ratings: only a fool would not take that without a grain of salt. But what I really don't care for, and what I really dislike, is this petty "oh which section of which article says that I cannot..."--go read the policy and see how it applies to your article. You might learn something. Seriously. It's good stuff. I hope that's not too much to ask--you can spend countless hours fine-tuning an article that's flawed from the moment you drew up the title, or you can spend some time thinking about things like space, time, objectivity. Some time reading, and then perhaps some time in a freshman writing class. See you later. Drmies (talk) 19:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- I can't create or modify an article based on anyone's hunches, dreams, speculations, suspicions, or paranoia. If you have data that contradicts the article, by all means add it, and add the reference, and change the ranking. Anyone can edit Wikipedia. Yes, there is a possibility exists a show in Russia or China that has a higher aggregate listenership, but Wikipedia is based on verifiability, not the hidden "truth". When someone finds a reference that info can be added under a new header, or in the paragraph that discusses the concept of a top radio show. Do you also have a problem with the other articles in the "top" category? There is top newspaper, top iTunes download, top soundscan album and top television broadcast. The TV program is for single episodes, not entire programs. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:38, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: this article is not about the most-listened-to in the world, only the U.S.A.. If kept, it ought to be identified as "...programs in the United States" or something similar. TheFeds 06:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have several issues with this article. First, it would require constant maintenance and updating to be current. Second, it's woefully outdated, using information that's nearly 4 years old (how would you like to see an article on the most-watched TV programs, but the most recent information is from 2005. Radio shows have up-to-date weekly ratings, like everything else). Third, the introduction gives little context as to why this article is needed. Fourth, it's US-centric and we're supposed to be moving away from that. An article on the most-listened-to radio broadcasts of all time would be viable. But I just don't see viability in this article. This is one occasion where the sources provided don't really mean a lot, regardless of whether they are reliable or not. If the article is kept, I echo The Fed's suggestion that it be at least retitled to indicate that it applies to the US only. 23skidoo (talk) 17:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain how that is different from any other statistical article such as GNP that has to be updated as new information becomes available, or any other list in the same category? Anything listed as the top, can change. The bestselling book, the most watched movie, changes every year. The article has references from 2005 through 2008 that show that the ranking hasn't changed much since 2005, and the top show hasn't changed since 1991 when the ranking was started. I think you may be confusing this article with one that might tell who the top radio station in any market is at any given time. To get millions of listeners you need to be syndicated in multiple markets. If the list changes, the article can be changed just like: List of the 100 wealthiest people or List of countries by GDP (nominal). It is less burdensome than ranking every country on Earth every year in multiple lists, since just the top few are listed here. In List of countries by GDP (nominal), every country has to have their numbers changed every year, and there are 5 lists just like it, ranking other economic data. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As the creator, my vote is keep. It is well sourced and encyclopedic, and is used to verify claims used in the radio shows listed at their individual articles. Arguments against it seem to be about the title and the list not being comprehensive, all can be addressed with more research, it is after all just a stub at this point. The topic is as encyclopedic as any other in the category of top lists. Sources are from 2005 through 2008, the list doesn't appear to change much unless a show moves off terrestrial radio, as did Howard Stern, or a new show comes along. Both are rare events, the number one show hasn't changed in at least 17 years. I don't see it any more challenging than say List of countries by GDP (nominal) which I am sure changes from day to day as exchange rates rise and fall, yet it is updated only once a year as new, official figures come out. Bill Gates used to top List of the 100 wealthiest people, now he is third. How is one article more burdensome than the other to maintain.

--Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:12, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then why don't you change the title? Or why didn't you make it reflect the content of the article in the first place? Drmies (talk) 23:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:LISTS (1) discriminate list, i.e. only radio programs, only most-listened-to radio programs, and only most-listened-to radio programs as verified in reliable sources; and 2) referenced list actively being rescued). In addition the existing sources, items on the list can be verified in published books. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 15:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep My only objection is the page's title, which is a bit misleading. I wouldn't think of doing a search using the word 'list' but I would consider a search on the words 'Radio', 'Ratings', 'Viewership' -- things like that if I wanted this information.--MurderWatcher1 (talk) 19:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I doubt people would get to the article by knowing the name of the article, but I based on the TV version. I think most people will come based on links in the top program articles. I think, like me, people will be reading that so and so is in the top, and wonder who the others in the ranking are. I added a few redirects to help someone looking directly. If you can think of any more redirects, please add them. We can always change the title later. I have data from the 1950s of who had the top show from a few books, but I will hold off to after the AFD. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, with "in the United States" added to the title. It's a perfectly respectable article, already well-developed and well-cited, and evolving daily. Its originator deserves accolades, not interference. Hertz1888 (talk) 07:13, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My original concept was to list shows from other markets, such as the BBC in the UK even if the aggregate number is lower than the US, and be closer to the TV version of the article. That data is harder to find. I have never objected to a name change for the article, but I still want to add more programs in other countries. The BBC in mandarin must have wide listenership. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it, then. Sounds like hard work, but not unfeasible. Hertz1888 (talk) 07:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems well referenced and a perfectly reasonable artice. If it doesn't grow beyond covering 2005-2008 and the US, that is not a reason to delete - perhaps just make the title more specific. I don't see that as being too narrow. Mdwh (talk) 14:44, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Richard Arthur Norton, Alansohn, A Nobody, Hertz 1888, and Mdwh. A reliably sourced, discriminate list. No grounds for deletion.--JayJasper (talk) 15:51, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are a lot of keep votes that seem to be assuming that reliable sources exist to corroborate rankings of radio programs. More details on which reliable sources you are referring to would be helpful. See above comments about availability of arbitron data.--Rtphokie (talk) 17:42, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm reading an article that provides a dozen reliable and verifiable sources that provide listener estimates. Can you specify which of these sources are NOT reliable? Alansohn (talk) 18:18, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I have to quote raw census data to add the new population estimate every 10 years to the article on the United States. I can quote the New York Times, or CNN, or Reuters or the Associated Press when they use that new number. I think the rule is to not quote raw data and attempt to interpret it yourself, because an editor runs the risk of making an error. People even make errors in simple math when they calculate a person's age in biographies when given the birth date and death date. Of course so do newspapers and magazines, that is why they have a corrections column every single issue. But again it is verifiability, not the abstract truth we are trying to capture. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:45, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep editing problems are not reasons for deletion--not that I see any major ones. As for the argument over sources, we use straightforward stats of this sort routinely. some data needs interpretation, some doesn't. DGG (talk) 04:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HARBEC Plastics

Contested prod, and OTRS pending. This page is about a company whose notability is unclear. It was previously deleted as a copyright violation, hence the {{OTRS pending}} tag. The deleted version has been restored because of this tag, but the problem is that the site it was copied from is a primary source about the company: it is the company's own website. The article is entirely promotional in tone, and the subject's notability is not established, but speedy G11 has been declined solely on the basis of the {{OTRS pending}} tag, which has been inserted by the page's creator. Delete, without prejudice against recreation if the OTRS request is for an as yet unrevealed third-party source that does establish notability. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ukexpat (talk) 01:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Keep in light of recent edits. – ukexpat (talk) 20:49, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have another revision. Where should I put it? Kateetak (talk) 02:16, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We're not looking for "other revisions" as much as we're looking for third-party reliable sources. Can you provide any? Your OTRS request for permission, was it for the company's website, or was it for some other source we have yet to hear about? -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I seem to have got involved by my watching of the feedback page where Kateetak posted. After various deletions/undeletions, which muddle edit histories, I am not sure what order things have been happening in, but the article itself was not there when I posted on the feedback page (I think). I shifted the modifications from Kateetak's own version to the undeleted page (I hope I am not confusing things further).
Essentially, there are two good sources: the first two refs of the current version (and particularly the first). Once the issue of text copied from the company's site is gone, this should be just about good enough. A whole article in a (specialist) source goes a long way to demonstrating notability. Regarding the copying, if Kateetak is not an employee/friend of Harbec, experience tells me it is a good idea to assume that permission will not happen and do a rewrite in your own words. Once copyright is sorted out, I would say that this on the verge, but just about makes keep. (UPDATE: conditional keep now firm keep—see below)— Kan8eDie (talk) 03:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: You will need "significant coverage in reliable sources". One source is probably not sufficient. – ukexpat (talk) 03:12, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Some articles in the past (note to policy junkies: consensus, not WP:WAX) have got by with a good article each from one or two national newspapers. I agree, one is pushing it, but it is an advance, and, while we wait for things to slow down and sort themselves out, I would still say keep, at least for a short time (assuming copyright is quickly resolved). At least we now have evidence of some interest. Some less good sources (my own, from google) include a release from a company selling wind turbines to Harbec ("Harbec Plastics, Inc. has a well-known green focus") and mention in various minor environmental organisations' case studies, like this.— Kan8eDie (talk) 03:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment: A note on press releases - I don't think a PR repeated verbatim on another company's website is a reliable source either. – ukexpat (talk) 14:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Agreed. This is stated on the main policy page (WP:COMPANY). They are useful to be able to say what the company claims to be doing, but not to say what it is actually doing. My 'less good' sources were mentions of interest, not notability-defining use of reliable sources. I have removed some excessive phrases from the lead. Ultimately though this not about how good the article is, but whether we can back up notability.— Kan8eDie (talk) 15:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OTRS Comment: The OTRS request (OTRS:2285651 for those with accounts) just confirms that the text is GFDL. Stifle (talk) 17:06, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Now that more information has come out (including the OTRS comment), I am confirming my conditional position above for the following reasons. Firstly, the previous speedy deletes of this article were mainly on the basis of copyvio; this has now been cleared up, and the content is legal. Secondly, the AfD was proposed at a time when the referencing of the article was rather unclear, and it was extremely non-obvious what sources were being used. Now, the notability is much more apparent. Though still a bit border-line, we can see that it has had a full article in a plastics-specialist online paper, and the main case-study source in article (plus the other less-reliable refs and further google hits) confirm that HARBEC has a significant reputation for its well-beyond-average environmental concerns.
The quality of the article as it stands does, it must be admitted, give a certain impression of advertising, but great improvements have been made, both by the original contributer and a few others. These are sufficient to demonstrate that any promotional tone is accidental (it must be taken into account that this is the first contribution of the initial author), and that there is a strong intention for the article to exist as more than just spam. The issues in this area are therefore not of concern in this particular debate.
While appropriate given the information available at the time, I think that the nominator's concerns are now addressed: all copyright concerns are over, and the primary source for at least the lead is the third-party article now identified. I hope that we can recognise the importance of this company (in its field) for a comprehensive encyclopaedia, particularly for its environmental efforts, and move on from here to make this a great article. Certainly the subject matter is serious, unlike manga or pokemon, and appropriate for an encyclopaedia, and given the interest shown by the sources, there seems no reason therefore for rejection.— Kan8eDie (talk) 23:04, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I totally agree with Kan8eDie. The nominator's reasons for deletion have been reconciled: there are now third party refs, no more copyright problems, and it has been found that the company is notable in its field. I think that describing the tone in the article as "extremely promotional" is a little extreme in itself. Like somebody above mentioned, we have to keep in mind that the article's creator is a new user, and we have to assume good faith. Killiondude (talk) 23:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:09, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adolf Hitler Campell

Speedy got declined but I fail to see what's notable about a toddler with a ridiculous name. (It's Campbell, by the way. Not Campell.) Unfortunate name, yes. Daddy ought to get his head read, sure. But WP:N? No. ~~SIS~~ 00:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The administrator who declined the speedy on this one gave me the impression he/she felt this was a borderline case (for speedy). Anyway, this falls under WP:BLP1E with the event covered in Yahoo news not even mentioned in the article. And yes, daddy should have his head checked. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:09, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This was a "weird news" item that, ultimately, was about how some parents were unable to get good service from the Shop Rite Supermarket near Greenwich, Pennsylvania, and they went to Wal-Mart instead. Mandsford (talk) 01:11, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Weird News, but WP:NOT#NEWS indeed. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 01:12, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd add that I agree that it wouldn't qualify for a speedy; as nonsensical as Dad might be, the article itself isn't nonsense, hoax or copyvio. Mandsford (talk) 01:11, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- poor kid. :( Still, having an unfortunate name does not confer notability. Reyk _YO! 01:16, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NOT#NEWS, weird news items do not by themselves satisfy the criteria for inclusion. — neuro^(talk) 01:40, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7. Absolutely no assertion of importance or significance. Deor (talk) 01:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--though Keith Olbermann and Rachel Meadow are discussing it as we speak, this idiot father is not going to last like Joe the Plumber. BTW, what a poorly written article. Misspelling the name is the worst of it, sure (seriously, how could you?), but I wish more authors would stop shooting from the hip. Drmies (talk) 02:03, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 02:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No lasting notability. If kept WP might be seen as contributing to the parents' abuse.Redddogg (talk) 02:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete WP:NOTNEWS/WP:BLP1E. Almost textbook example. Do not speedy since it does not meet any speedy deletion criteria. Claims that it is A7 are inaccurate given that the incident at ShopRite made national news. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:35, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The ShopRite incident is, nonetheless, not an assertion of significance for this person. A mention in "national news" is not necessarily an indication of "why its subject is important or significant" per CSD A7. Deor (talk) 04:40, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This person's name was the cause of multiple national news stories. That's an assertion of importance. It is a really weak one but it is there. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Ryek, Drmies, Redddogg. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — I know! I'll make my son notable by calling him George Wallace Johnson! Or better yet, George Bush Hamilton! MuZemike (talk) 03:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Now I see what it was that made George Washington Carver famous. It was just the name... -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 04:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy, snowball delete, per the reasons above. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 08:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly doesn't warrant an article on its own because the kid didn't do anything yet, but the media attention might mean that inclusion in List of unusual personal names would be a good idea. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:12, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN person who just happens to have a offensive name. Just about anytime a parent decides to ruin their kids life by giving them a bad name it gets mentioned by a newspaper, doesn't make it notable though. TJ Spyke 17:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although this was covered by news outlets, there is no indication that any sort of lasting notability is likely to occur. Probable WP:BLP issues with some of the statements made here, too. If this blows up into some sort of national controversy, then the article can be recreated at a later date. For now, let it go. 23skidoo (talk) 17:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete, fails WP:SNOW, WP:N and WP:NOT#NEWS. The Rolling Camel (talk) 17:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As much as this name is unusual, there is no lasting notability. As the old saying goes, 'Every dog has its days'. Also the name is misspelled. -MrBiggles42 (talk) 18:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there is no lasting notability. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 18:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge Perhaps a mention of the supermarket story about refusing to decorate the cake could be inserted in Adolf Hitler in popular culture or someplace. LinguistAtLarge 20:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Facility (telecommunications)

Article is nothing but a DICTDEF and has no promise of evolving beyond that point. Briefly attempted rescue but realized it would prove fruitless. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:31, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:33, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not so sure. See also Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Federal Standard 1037C clean up. Deletion is often not the answer for these articles. Uncle G (talk) 13:38, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Hmm. I was unaware of that at the time of nomination. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:59, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's a long-term cleanup effort. But the important point is that most of the articles left are cleanup targets, not deletion. We already picked the low-hanging deletion fruit back in the early months of the project.
    As for how such things can be cleaned up, take a look at what I did with Online (AfD discussion) and Off-line (AfD discussion), which were two other FS 1037C articles, that I dealt with by refactoring, renaming, merging, and expanding. Uncle G (talk) 22:25, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Even though it's structured like a defition, with a little bit of effort editors could turn this into an encyclopedic article. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 15:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Dicdef, yes, but not unsalvageable. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Could easily be turned into a reasonably good article if people work at it. — neuro^(talk) 01:41, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I suppose it could have been relisted again but with no dissent, I'm calling this a 9 day PROD StarM 05:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deliverance: Part Two

This article provides no reception information, no production information, and no citations from reliable sources. Almost the entire article consists of plot summary. This is not a notable subject. Neelix (talk) 19:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As no one's bothered to create an article on Part One, and I don't see any reference to there being other articles on Amen episodes, there's no point having this lone wolf. 23skidoo (talk) 20:44, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 01:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jonny Staub

Non-notable: zero gBook hits, one gNews hit (no content), and 193 gHits. Co-host of a radio program - does not qualify as Notable. SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 19:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's been mentioned to me that I might be relying on gHits too much, so I'll add that the gNews hit I found literally says "Jonny Staub will break plates at Koutouki Taverna South." in the Edmonton Sun. It's something about a Christmas Charity Auction, and that's the only mention. No clue if it's the same Staub.

--- Indeed that is the same Jonny. There are also many other mentions of him on the web (google his name and it pops up over several pages) and also conforms to other radio/television/media profiles featured on Wikipedia. I don't see the issue here SatyrTN, although your page does say that 3 times you've been "nominated" for being homophobic. Is that why you're trying to delete this profile? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightscamerafiction (talk • contribs) 02:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The gHits include many blogs, some self-pub items, and copies of the article. Seems he also has an IMDB page for playing himself in one TV episode. Oh - and the 193 number is wrong - there are only 71 hits. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 03:57, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Doesn't show notability per WP:BIO. Schuym1 (talk) 21:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks notability, lacks references.--Rtphokie (talk) 19:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just now I've added five references. Major Canadian newspapers have covered him for his radio career. The 2001 article is entirely about him. Keep, as there is enough there for the general notability guideline. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Can you point me to where you found these references? I was able to find the Edmonton Journal reference you added but not the others (The Province online archives only go back to 2003). These appear to be brief articles about DJ changes at local radio stations rather than the "significant coverage" that WP:BIO is looking for.--Rtphokie (talk) 12:37, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - As far as I can tell, the references are not available online. I found them in my library's database. Keep in mind that WP:N is careful not to say that "brief" will be "insignificant". An article can provide some verifiable information, covering the subject in brief without being "trivial". Two of the articles (the 2001-12-17 one and the 2002-07-29) go well beyond that, though, as they provide other biographical information about Staub. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:40, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article was certainly deletable in its original form at the time of nomination, but now it's a keep per Paul Erik's reference improvements. Being an openly gay DJ on a mainstream commercial radio station is still rare enough that it probably does constitute notability on its own, but even if that isn't considered sufficient then cohosting an internationally-broadcast television series should certainly be. Bearcat (talk) 16:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per reference improvements. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as article is now well referenced and sources appear to verify notability. I too wish the articles were online but that's just the FUTON bias talking. - Dravecky (talk) 16:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:17, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cadastre and Real Estate Publicity in Romania

This seems like a general definition of cadastre, rather than a Romania specific article. — Twinzor ^{Say hi!} 00:06, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete what I would call a reverse coatrack article. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:55, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 02:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice to a general article about land title in Romania, which sounds to me like a better prospect for an article. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you're referring to my nomination, I didn't mean to be prejudiced, but rather what I meant was that there is already an article about cadastre, so this article is not needed unless the definition in Romania somehow differs from the general one, which the article doesn't show as it is. — Twinzor ^{Say hi!} 15:28, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I use without prejudice in the US legal sense, did not mean to confuse or imply some kind of bias. Only meant to suggest that if this is deleted, we should nevertheless welcome a general article about land law in Romania, and if that article grows in size and detail, we may even have an article about Romanian cadastral law. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:19, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, my apologies then. I completely agree with you. Thanks for explaining! — Twinzor ^{Say hi!} 16:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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