Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 July 29

Guide to deletion

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhilKnight (talk) 06:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Open Road (Short Film)

Open Road (Short Film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

OK so Andy Picheta who will star in this movie is reasonably notable. But does that make this low budget, not yet released movie notable? Sgroupace (talk) 11:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, currently fails notability per WP:NFF, and even if it comes out I can't see it passing WP:MOVIE either.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 12:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:NFF and WP:CRYSTAL--  Darth Mike  _{(Talk • Contribs)} 14:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 17:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. While it has started filming (allegedly), lack of available sources suggests chronic non-notability ([1], [2]). PC78 (talk) 17:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete without prejudice, as contributor has not sourced any of the statements. If/when notability is established and the article is sourced, it could be returned. Michael Q. Schmidt (talk) 19:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete due to lack of established notability about this film. Even if Andy Picheta is involved, notability is not inherited. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, with no prejudice against recreation after the GameZone review is published. Many of the keep arguments below were either previously invalidated at deletion review, and most of the others either make WP:ATA arguments or weak arguments. I am willing to undelete after the review is published, although from the discussion it appears it might be better to just recreate from scratch. lifebaka++ 13:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Astro empires

Astro empires (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Nonnotable browser-based game. One interview in a Portuguese newspaper doesn't satisfy WP:V. NawlinWiki (talk) 11:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Keep This game is more notable than the large majority of browser games in Wikipedia. Please provide arguments why this game is less notable than the following games or withdraw the deletion request:
  

The Continuum - Alexa Rank: 107,539
Cthulhu Nation - Alexa Rank: 1,167,208
Dogs of the Seas - Alexa Rank: 160,523
ERepublik - Alexa Rank: 9,668
Forumwarz - Alexa Rank: 73,358
Habbo - Alexa Rank: 138,016
Horse Isle - Alexa Rank: 151,349
Informatist - Alexa Rank: 482,806
KDice - Alexa Rank: 77,993
Kingdom of Loathing - Alexa Rank: 8,783
Jennifer Government: NationStates - Alexa Rank: 14,295
NukeZone - Alexa Rank: 50,284
Orion's Belt - Alexa Rank: 772,595
Planetarion - Alexa Rank: 138,736
DragonSpires - Alexa Rank: 1,425,534
Stellar Crisis - Alexa Rank: 15,729,717
Trade Wars - Alexa Rank: 693,293
Twilight Heroes - Alexa Rank: 173,281
Urban Dead - Alexa Rank: 19,276
X-Wars - Alexa Rank: 35,899

Astro Empires - Alexa Rank: 8,247

Most or all this games have no reference in a major paper media as Astro Empires do. Wikipedia needs to be coherent and unbiased. Xaman79 (talk) 14:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC+1) — User:Xaman79 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Note Alexa is not a reliable way of gauging site popularity, and in any case popularity of a website is not a bar by which articles are kept or deleted. JuJube (talk) 14:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Then what is a reliable way of gauging websites? In any case then please explain the arguments used to all the games listed in Wikipedia which I described. What do they have more to offer than this game? Coherence is required here. Xaman79 (talk) 16:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC+1)

Generally speaking, coverage in independent, third-party sources. WP:NOTE. This is a real grey area case. Livitup (talk) 15:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Delete—WP:OSE is not a vaild argument. Notability not backed up by any sources I could find in quick searches. World Of Warcraft this one is not. Show me the citations. Livitup (talk) 14:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I already provided a link to the interview done by Portugal's MOST READ newspaper on the game developer. Find it here. This should count more than most gaming websites. Here is also a review on a gaming website Review Xaman79 (talk) 16:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC+1)
    • Also, it says on WP:OSE that, and I quote "But such an argument may be perfectly valid if such can be demonstrated in the same way as one might demonstrate justification for an article's creation. It would be ridiculous to consider deleting an article on Yoda or Mace Windu, for instance. If someone were, as part of their reasoning for keep, to say that every other main character in Star Wars has an article, this may well be a valid point. In this manner, using an "Other Stuff Exists" angle provides for consistency. Unfortunately, most deletion discussions are not as clear-cut, but the principles are the same.". Astro Empires is more notable than most multiplayer browser games listed in Wikipedia, it makes no sense that it should be deleted while the others are kept. Again, consistency is the word. Xaman79 (talk) 16:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC+1)
• Keep. I'm unsatisfied by the suggestion that "One interview in a Portuguese newspaper doesn't satisfy WP:V". Clearly it does; a newspaper is a reasonable source, and the fact that it's in Portuguese should not count against it on an international site. I'm also unimpressed with "World of Warcraft this one is not", which I consider disrespectful and sneering. -- However, I consider the article falls below the NPOV standards and should be edited to read less like an advertisement. S Marshall (talk) 14:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - It's skirting the notability line, but it still needs a lot of cleanup to keep it from looking like an advertisement. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 15:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment—Actually, I don't challenge that the Portugese newspaper meets WP:V, but I challenge that the article we are debating meets WP:NOTE. "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." I question (seriously—I am open to debate on this topic) whether the two sources cited in the article establish notability. I have been the subject of two newspaper articles, but I'm not notable. As for my throwaway comment about WoW, it was meant to counter Xaman79's OSE argument. I apologize if it came across as uncivil. Livitup (talk) 15:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Comment-I realise you didn't challenge the WP:V issue; but NawlinWiki did, and I posted in response to him as well as yourself. I think there's a broader debate to be had about notability with browser games, on which Xaman79's Alexa rankings throw a strong light. But I think the sheer number of users of this particular game should probably be sufficient to establish a presumption in favour of keeping the article. I do feel it's a very long article given the subject matter and I do feel there's room for discussion on NPOV.S Marshall (talk) 15:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - It's pretty apparent that this article has a lot more relevance than many others on the site that fall under the same "genre." It's a well-known game, it's highly populated, and it's been around for nearly two years now. It's been referenced by both websites and newspaper articles. I don't see how there's any argument against this. Thekithless (talk) 16:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC) — Thekithless (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep but needs clean up. The articles supplied and popularity of the game meet WP:NOTE. The links provided also meets WP:V. I do agree that the article needs to be made more independent and less like an advertisement but we don't shut down notable articles for being in need of some work, we clean them up. Butch-cassidy (talk) 16:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Notability exists for the article, as other citable sources do offer the game some degree of coverage it seems, which is nothing to sneeze at.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete and salt The two newspaper sources are the same ones brought up in the deletion review in February. Interviews are usfeul for development information but are mostly useless sources for reception - which is where notability is asserted in videogame articles. Developers talking about their game does not equal an unbiased secondary source. The review highlighted shows no signs of being reliable. I would be happy to switch to keep if some reliable reviews are found, but the whack-a-mole article history, canvassing on Astro Empire's forum and rambling irrelevancies regarding WP's inclusion guidelines smacks of pitch-till-you-win. Someoneanother 18:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep The number of players registered at AstroEmpires make it notable, let alone the fact that it has received multiple media reviews. In fact, the number of players make a stronger case in my mind than the media reviews (of course, I can't read the articles...). WP:COMMON tells us how to handle this: the game has 42,965 players worldwide. If something that 42,965 people know about and do every day doesn't meet notability standards, then the standards are inadequate. WP:IAR Who cares how many reviews have appeared on silly gamer sites? If that's all it takes, then they could solicit their players to contact the sites and demand a review. They certainly have the numbers to warrant one. The lack of critical coverage is, in my mind, a failing on the part of game review sites to notice a game that is clearly as popular as any other browser game, not a lack of notability. -Forridean 19:30:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC) Do not replace SPA tag or arbitration will be sought

• Just because a large group of people does something, doesn't make it inherently notable. I'm sure that at least 42,965 people in Oregon, Washington, etc walk their dogs in the early hours of the morning, yet mysteriously Dog Walking in the Pacific Northwest (predawn) doesn't exist. The number of people playing the game doesn't act as a substitute for notability requirements. Trusilver 16:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 20:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete and Salt — I agree with Someoneanother on the lack of establishment of notability solely from an interview. This has already been shown in the corresponding deletion review that the user so-kindly linked. In addition, it is only mentioned as a reference; it is not even cited anywhere in the article. Now I do not speak Portugese (this is an English Wikipedia, anyway), but I can only speculate that the interview only deals with the development of the game and not with any mention of how the game is being received, critical coverage, etc. Furthermore, none of the articles cited are reliable nor are they verifiable per WP:V. The references are either from the site itself or from the site's forum. This is a textbook failure of establishing any verifiability. And I am not even mentioning that this article is a blatant advertisement (see Astro empires#Upgraded Status). MuZemike (talk) 21:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Google's translator actually managed a pretty good job, if I believed this article was salvageable I would use both sources to create a development section. The problem is, they both boil down to "the developer said this, the developer said that", there's no pool of development info in there to create a reception section with. Someoneanother 22:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment--Two issues are being conflated here. They are: 1) Does AstroEmpires merit an article of some kind (which has been challenged on grounds of WP:V and WP:NOTE); and 2) If it does, should this be the article (which clearly it should not--it fails the NPOV and Conflict of Interest tests, at least). Challenges on ground (2) are not reasons to delete the article; they are merely reasons to edit it. Furthermore, the fact that this article has been deleted for non-notability before does not justify assuming it is not notable now, since the game has clearly grown in the interim.--Of the valid challenges, I personally remain of the opinion that WP:NOTE is satisfied by the number of users, the number of servers and the longevity of the game. On WP:V I would like to see comments by a Portuguese speaker.S Marshall (talk) 22:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - Again, if this is the argument used, 90% of the multiplayer browser games listed in Wikipedia should be deleted. If Wikipedia wishes to maintain a coherent and fair policy, they need to add Astro Empires. I haven't seen so far a logical argument why this shouldn't be added when the others were. I agree the article may need some work, but such can only be done if this isn't deleted. Astro Empires is one of the top games of its genre and its notability has been proved already, therefore it should be listed in Wikipedia. Xaman79 (talk) 01:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC+1)

• And again, you are trying to use the WP:WAX as well as WP:ALLORNOTHING deletion argument pitfalls. The article has needed a complete rewrite every time it has been re-created, but instead, every time, it has been re-written as a blatant advertisement. There has been plenty of chances to write a somewhat-encyclopedic article complete with verifiable, third-party sources establishing its notability; they have all so far been squandered.

It has not been proven that the interview establishes notability; in fact, the opposite has been shown by admins in the previous deletion review:

• The link provided in the request is not a critical article (or "in-depth look"), as would constitute a verifiable secondary source. Rather it consists solely of quotes from the game creators. Aside from these quotes, there is no encyclopedic content nor independent context for notability.
• this seems too much like trying to get a new game air time in wikipedia
• The new information is insufficient to overturn a very solid AfD consensus, and the SPA/sock accounts here are far from a good sign.

Finally, you claim it's one of the top games in the genre, but no proof. How are we to know or believe that it is? Judging from the repeated attempts at blatant advertising, it all boils down to WP:ITSNOTABLE claims. It is immaterial as to the number of users, servers, etc. are involved in this game; if there is no significant coverage as well as no reliable sources that are independent of the subject that can satisfy the general notability guideline, then it meets the criteria for deletion. MuZemike (talk) 00:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• No reliable source? The NUMBER ONE newspaper in Portugal is not a reliable source? What is, a dodgy website? Your arguments are not logical. And what blatant advertising? And if this was the issue, than we wouldn't be having this discussion, instead we would be discussing about improving the article, not delete it. Xaman79 (talk) 09:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC+1)

• The interview, not the paper itself, is not realiable. I also quote from the article itself: Currently, there are two types of accounts: Upgraded and Free. Players begin their first week of play with an ugraded account and are downgraded to a lower account after this week. These additional features are offered to encourage users to help the game develop and fund its operation. This is no different than informing users that you can buy a license to a piece of shareware instead of keeping the current free version of the software. Finally, how are my arguments not logical? Please explain in detail. MuZemike (talk) 07:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not discussing the interview's content, it's no more than an interview to the game developer about this game. However, the fact that a major newspaper like Correio da Manhã recognized it as notorious enough to be published speaks for itself. You don't get major national newspapers showing interest in browser games everyday. Most games listed here probably never had any newspaper writing about them and I value that more than a gaming website which you can PAY to get a review for your game. We also were contacted for a TV interview, by a Portuguese national television, however the developer refused as he wanted to keep a low profile. Xaman79 (talk) 12:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC+1)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the Correio da Manhã article consider the quality of the work there to be junk food news? --Seascic ^T/_C 14:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• Also don't forget this [interview]. This one is more focused on the game than the developer. This media website is dedicated to the Algarve (where the developer is from) and is the source of news from the Algarve for all major national and international media. Xaman79 (talk) 12:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC+1)

• Note — Blatant advertising removed (see diff) and article flagged for rescue. However, I still propose that this article be deleted for clearly failing the general notability guideline as well as salted because of its long history of recreation, conflicts of interest, and sock puppetry allegations by admin. MuZemike (talk) 19:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• Note — Hold the salt. MuZemike (talk) 23:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

• Speedy delete and salt. Being both an Astro Empires player and a Wikipedia administrator, I was very cautious about making any position on this AfD. However, after reading all the available material and the past history of this article, I am forced to agree that the article should be deleted and protected to prevent further recreation until such a time comes that it can qualify for inclusion. All the arguments made to support the article seem to fail WP:N, WP:V and WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Furthermore, I see no additional information that has been included in this incarnation of the article that wasn't available for the last deletion and subsequent deletion review. As such, I feel that this article qualifes for speedy deletion under G4 criteria. Trusilver 03:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• As an administrator then perhaps you can explain the criteria used with the games I listed. Wikipedia can't depend on different criteria used by different people. Claiming that because of those games were accepted is not a valid argument fails by itself. If this article is to be deleted, then all the others need to be reviewed and possibly deleted as well. Try visiting those games and then visit Astro Empires, see which ones are more notorious than this. Xaman79 (talk) 09:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC+1)

• WP:WAX again. MuZemike (talk) 07:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• That's not a proper reply. I'm not saying add Astro Empires becuase there are other articles about the same game genre in Wikipedia. I'm saying add Astro Empires because LESS notable games have been added and the same criteria should be used in this situation. Otherwise it's incoherent and inconsistent. Now you try WP:OSE, which says and I quote "In general, these deletion debates should focus mainly on the nominated article. In consideration of precedent and consistency, though, identifying articles of the same nature that have been established and continue to exist on Wikipedia may provide extremely important insight into general notability of concepts, levels of notability (what's notable: international, national, regional, state, provincial?), and whether or not a level and type of article should be on Wikipedia.". If you follow one guidelines, you need to follow them all. Xaman79 (talk) 10:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC+1)

• Inclusion is not an indicator of notability. MuZemike (talk) 08:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• Not a valid argument. We're not talking about a couple of articles here, but the majority of the games listed in the multiplayer browser games. I refuse to believe that only NOW you choose to enforce this criteria. Xaman79 (talk) 10:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC+1)

• It's a completely valid argument, nobody holds sole responsibility for policing nearly 2.5 million articles and ensuring that they conform to WP's policies and guidelines, if an editor decides to create an article it doesn't get sent to a holding pen and approved, it's listed straight into the encyclopedia. That's the way it works. Nobody is going to go through that list and spend hours trying to locate sources for each since they're not the focus of this discussion, that's why articles are listed separately unless they are shards of the same topic. If they don't demonstrate notability and no sources can be found for them they run the risk of being listed for deletion at any time. Look further up the video game deletion list and you'll notice two more webgames listed. This isn't just being dealt with now, which you know since you commented at the deletion review, articles which are reposted in the same state they were deleted in tend to get noticed and pulled up. Someoneanother 12:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• I see you point, but still believe that many of those articles were accepted after reviewed and therefore find grounds for Astro Empires to be accepted in Wikipedia as well. If work on the article is required, is more than acceptable, but it deserves a chance. Xaman79 (talk) 15:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC+1)

• Those other articles weren't "accepted after reviewed". If they are less deserving as this one for inclusion, then they should be deleted also - so go ahead and propose them. This discussion has had far too much focus on other articles. This article is what we are discussing, and it either passes or fails on its own merits without regard to any other articles that happen to exist. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• Facts--Astro Empires exists for over 2 years. Astro Empires has over 40 thousand active players in 5 different universes (inactive accounts are deleted after 15 days). Astro Empires player's are mostly from English speaking countries (USA, UK, Canada and Australia). Astro Empires has a forum with over 16 thousand users with half a million posts (which get pruned from time to time). Astro Empires in ranked 8,271 in Alexa, meaning it’s on the top 10.000 websites in all the world (for comparing, oGame which is probably the top game of the genre has a rank of 4,010). Astro Empires’ main developer (Portuguese) was interviewed by Portugal’s most read newspaper. 20 out of 30 games listed in the List of multiplayer browser games have lower ranking and are less notable than Astro Empires. Astro Empires is the first game of this genre and dimension to have ever been developed by a Portuguese programmer/company. That alone is remarkable--Xaman79 (talk) 12:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC+1)

• Comment--The actual issues under discussion are WP:NOTE and WP:V and we should concentrate on those. (None of the other objections cited are grounds for deletion, though they are grounds for editing.) Notability and verifiability are established via significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources. Therefore the questions are (1) whether a Portuguese national newspaper is a reliable, secondary source, and (2) whether the article cited constitutes significant coverage.--I believe it would be extremely hard to justify saying a Portuguese national newspaper is not a reliable, secondary source. Portugal is hardly the third world. On whether the article is significant coverage, all we have are conflicting opinions that won't lead to a resolution.S Marshall (talk) 10:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
• Suggestion--Because I believe AstroEmpires merits an article on WP:NOTE and WP:V grounds, but the article we presently have is fairly dismal and this is colouring the debate on deletion, I suggest that it be replaced with a stub reading something like: "AstroEmpires is a browser game of space strategy offering free or paid subscriptions. It has over 40,000 subscribers."S Marshall (talk) 10:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• Agree--The article itself needs a cleanup and improvement, so that suggestion is appropriate for the time being. The article has been changed accordingly. Xaman79 (talk) 12:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC+1)

• Comment In the process of fixing up the refs, I noticed that the newspaper, Correio da Manhã, is associated with junk food news (according to our article, at least, so take that with a grain of salt). I'm not familiar with the paper myself, and don't know where it falls on the legitimate news/tabloid scale. Pagrashtak 13:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• That newspaper is a bit more sensationalist in the news than Público (Portugal) and Jornal de Notícias, yes, but it doesn't qualify on the description of junk food news. Xaman79 (talk) 15:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC+1)

• Speedy delete and salt This article was already the subject of a [deletion review http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_February_4], which makes it qualify for speedy deletion. However, since this has received such a large amount of controversy (albeit mostly from people with a WP:COI, it really should wait the five days. --Seascic ^T/_C 14:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• You shouldn't make false testimonies or assumptions, I may have a WP:COI but please explain why do you consider the other ones here supporting this article to have the same? You're including Wikipedia admins in your accusation. Xaman79 (talk) 21:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC+1)

• I'm not saying that everybody who's saying keep has a WP:COI. In fact, User:DGG is not connected to this game in any way. I was refering to the large number of single purpose accounts that have made few or other edits independent of astro empires. This has already been brought to the attention of WP:COIN, so I'm sure they will be looking into this matter and taking appropriate action with it. --Seascic ^T/_C 19:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• I do think the meatpuppet-flagging in this discussion has been overenthusiastic.--S Marshall (talk) 20:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
• What large numbers? Only myself and another user that I've noticed have been flagged single purpose, so please explain your statement. Xaman79 (talk) 22:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC+1)

• COMMENT They keep flagging everyone who votes for 'Keep' as a meat puppet, myself included. I've had my account on Wikipedia for over a year, and I'm still getting these allegations, even though I have absolutely no vested interest in this article or the game whatsoever. The fact that I have not contributed a great deal to the site is not evidence of any COI or SPA, nor does it render my opinion less valuable than people who have contributed more. When I became aware of this issue, I decided to comment on it, and that is granted as my right by the principles of this site.

What I think we're seeing here is less valid arguments and more people wallowing in the ecstasies of bureaucracy, and even more shameful, attempting to use Wikipedia processes as ammunition to bolster their view point. You've stated your case, it is not your place or your job to attempt to assassinate the character of those who disagree. This ceased to be a DISCUSSION (which it is supposed to be) and became a crusade for several of the people here, and that's really too bad. If anyone's behavior during this process calls in to question WP:COI, it's the people who are venomously attacking those who feel that this article is notable. WP:AGF was dead out of the gates. forridean 21:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

For purposes of debate, you are a single purpose account. You have made a few edits to the talk pages of Geisha and Juggalo. Also, you made one edit to Geisha back in September 2007. You haven't been active on Wikipedia in 10 months, then you just randomly start back up again with this AfD? It's incredibly suspicious. WP:SPA classifies making one edit to an article (other than a talk page, and other than your user page) before this to be a single purpose account. I'd like to restate that not everybody who says keep is a sock/meatpuppet. User:DGG said that this article should stay and I didn't go accusing him at all. But keep in mind that he's edited more than just one or two articles with his account. Stop trying to play the victim here, and instead try to form a strong argument that will keep this article from being deleted. --Seascic ^T/_C 00:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Once again, it is not your place or your job to attempt to impinge the character of the people commenting on AfD. I posted my thoughts, they are outlined above. Agree with them, or disagree with them, bandying about accusations in your manner is ad hominem at it's finest. I read through the page and you are persistant in behaving in this manner with other users. Stop. This is not how you debate, by attacking the character of those who oppose you. This is not an election. Your activities are not a contribution to civil and rational discussion, and there is absolutely no way that you can contend otherwise. Forridean 02:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

They have the {{spa}} template for a reason. You taking it down shows that you are trying to cover up something that others have the right to see.

--Seascic ^T/_C 03:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Take it to talk pages, this is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. I am removing it because it is a false accusation being used as ad hominem in an otherwise civil discussion. You are acting immaturely. As I have already indicated on your talk page, I also insist here that you cease making these allegations.

• Keep For games of this sort, sufficient popularity is notability, as long as an article can be written, and the interviews are sufficient for that. DGG (talk) 15:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
  • You're entitled to your opinion, but Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view disagree with you. If we write an article built entirely on interviews with the interested parties, how could it possibly be NPOV? Pagrashtak 19:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
• Note — Article and discussion have been brought to the attention at WP:COIN. MuZemike (talk) 18:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
• Note — Dispute resolution via editor assistance has been requested. MuZemike (talk) 22:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
• Keep News articles meet WP:N, but writing an article from them might be hard. A quick web search shows that there is plenty of interest in this game AND there are plenty of reviews and user comments to write a decent article. But I'm having a hard time finding much that isn't self published other than the two news stories. That said, primary sources can be used to describe the game. This genre just lacks a "reliable" review source which makes things tricky. Oh, and the Alexa rank also strongly hints at notability. Hobit (talk) 00:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. This article needs a lot of work as it is barely a stub. I'm not familiar enough with massively multiplayer games, etc to know which ones are notable enough but have no problem whatsoever believing that traditional media sources pretty much don't cover these arenas well. I would expect that this would be discussed in gaming communities and online blogs which are generally disparaged as sources. I think this is a good example of a subject that will have to be written with new media sourcing until, and if, traditional media also decides this content is valuable to it's paying customers. I'm also alarmed by "delete and salt" votes as if this could never become notable. As nom has pointed out that seems more likely than not. I encourage some thoughtful expansion as, unfortunately, AfD, although should be about what an article can become is too often based on what people think of the subject and what state the article is currently in. I'm also swayed by 42,000+ players, even if a subject has absolutely no interest to me, there's no reason my disinterest should keep others from learning about it. Banjeboi 01:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The reason salting has been suggested is because this article has been created, deleted, recreated, redeleted, etc several times. There was even a deletion review for it where it was salted, and then creator has to make this article without the E capitalised to get around it. Salting an article doesn't prevent creation permanently. It prevents people from creating the same article that has been deleted numerous times in the past. They still have the option of having an administrator allow the creation of the article at such a time in the future when the material is suitable to become an article. Until then, salting prevents the same problems that are occuring now. --Seascic ^T/_C 02:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

This user reflects the essence of my own opinion. If 42,000 people worldwide are aware of a website, that is notablility by definition. IAR, I say, if this doesn't meet notability guildelines, then the guidelines need to be revised. Forridean 02:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• Seacic--I believe you are using lies and irrelevant arguments to try and uphold your own opinion. As far as I'm aware, only ONCE was an article about the game created, which was then deleted, in February. It's only natural, that since we didn't agree with that decision, and since editors are not perfect therefore can make mistakes, along with the fact that after 6 months the game has grown even more, I decided to recreate it for review, something anyone else would find perfectly natural and not use it as an argument for this discussion. If there were other atempts to create this article, which were deleted as you say, please provide proof so I can check it for myself. Thank you. Xaman79 (talk) 09:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC+1)

• Log page for Astro Empires. It shows that the article has been deleted a total of six times. MuZemike (talk) 07:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment What it shows is that articles with this title have been deleted six times. Which leads me to ask whether the content was the same on each occasion?--S Marshall (talk) 07:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - Exactly. Is it possible to actually see the content on those deleted articles? Also, this proves that there is a very high interest from people to have this game added to Wikipedia. Xaman79 (talk) 10:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC+1)

• Comment I would like to point out the fact that User:Forridean is a single purpose account. I keep tagging his/her first comment on the page, yet he/she keeps taking it down. Their claim is that they are not a SPA because they have had their account for almost a full year. Please keep in mind when looking at their entries that they have only edited one article on Wikipedia, and about three other talk pages before coming into this debate. Now they are threatening to take me to arbitration for mentioning this. This furthers evidence that they are a sock puppet of another user. --Seascic ^T/_C 03:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Retort I would like to point out that you continue to attempt to call in to question my veractiy by slandering me in a blatant display of ad hominem, despite my attempts to talk it over with you. It is not appropriate for AfD debate, nor any interaction with a user. I've said my peice, if you don't stop, we're going to arbitration. Why to arbitration? Your words: "and your blocking for violation of WP:3RR". You aren't trying to talk to me, you aren't trying to resolve anything, you're trying to bully me under the assumption that I won't know any better. Well, I do. So stop. Forridean 03:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Forridean (talk • contribs)

No, the next step for dispute resolution is a request for comment; if you know better, then you should know that. Skipping steps will only get you reprimanded for doing so. MuZemike (talk) 06:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment--I feel both sides are falling foul of WP:AGF in this dispute. Forridean was a pre-existing account and had made other edits prior to commenting here, and he deleted the spa tag quite politely the first time. Calling someone a meatpuppet is insulting and I feel Seascic should have not replaced the spa tag when it was deleted. And I sympathise with Forridean's ire, having been called a meatpuppet myself in this debate! It's very annoying when someone on the other side of the debate attempts to have your opinion discounted.--But equally, I feel Forridean may have overreacted. It would have been politer to assume Seascic's actions were not motivated by personal hostility towards Forridean, but by a genuine if misplaced feeling that Forridean really was a sockpuppet.--I feel the dispute resolution process has been invoked unnecessarily, and I hope both parties will have the maturity to take a little while to calm down, and then consider whether it might not be appropriate to apologise to the other.--S Marshall (talk) 10:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

• Note — A request for comment has been made regarding this discussion due to the lack of expediency of WP:COIN and editor assistance. MuZemike (talk) 06:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
• Note — A third opinion has been requested as to the recent WP:SPA accusation. MuZemike (talk) 07:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC

• Comment - SPA was appropriate for Forridean. --eric (mailbox) 13:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment As a participant at WP:3O I have removed the third opinion request because the closing admin will properly decide the weight of the !vote and whether or not the commentor is a SPA. A 3O would be inappropriate in this case. Jim Miller (talk) 15:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, it has independent review. --RekishiEJ (talk) 15:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC) 15:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC) fix
• Source concern Three more references have been added, but I have concerns about their reliability. World Online Games doesn't appear to have a privacy policy, or any of the other legal bits I'd expect to find on a well-established site. Their contact page is one email address. I don't see any indication of fact-checking or submission review. Next we have "Gordaen’s Blog"—emphasis on blog. Is the author acknowledged as an expert in the field? Is he cited by news organizations or other reliable sources? Lastly, xigre.com says on the front page, "...place for you to post link to your site or just to find what you need about some specific game. If you are a blogger or a website owner and you have a website or blog which can fit into any available category, feel free to add it..." This doesn't sound like a reliable source to me either. Can anyone show us why these meet the requirements of Wikipedia:Reliable sources? Pagrashtak 16:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Update—I've removed the sources due to agreement below that they are not reliable. Pagrashtak 18:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• Opinion--They're marginally reliable if at all. Their inclusion is justified, though, when the main reliable source is in a foreign language.--S Marshall (talk) 16:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

No, unreliable sources should not be used, no matter what language. Pagrashtak 18:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• They're not remotely reliable and are the kind of sources which are removed during improvement processes. The blog is just a personal blog, of no more use than a GameFAQs review. World Online Games is one of countless MMO funnel-sites which list links to MMOs and push advertising, all reviews in the side panel are by this Jamie Baker, the webmaster? There's no indication of reliability (in our terms). Xigre is user-generated web directory and again the submissions carry as much weight as Average Joe's blog, IE none. Someoneanother 18:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• Query--Please could either of you cite any source you consider reliable for browser games?--S Marshall (talk) 18:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely, significant coverage by any of the following would work, for example: BBC News [3], the Associated Press [4], The Chicago Tribune [5], The Wall Street Journal [6]—this is just a short list, but are some good examples of reliable sources. Pagrashtak 18:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• Jay Is Games (note references on talk page), Rock Paper Shotgun, meryl.net (Meryl K. Evans' blog) - notice this is a published author and writer in the computing sector, this is the kind of blog you'd be looking for rather than the one stipulated above. Eurogamer has a news item about KoL here and an article on four MMOs here, note that three out of four of the games are in the list at the top of this discussion. Other reliable sites and magazines randomly cover retro/indie/MMO/casual games. There is no GameSpot equivalent so it's a case of trawling google as opposed to finding 'the right site' and trawling that. Someoneanother 18:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• Fair enough, then: I concede that those extra three references aren't reliable. Unless someone more knowledgeable than me can show otherwise, I agree they should be deleted and we should return to the first two sources cited. I do think it's unfortunate that the only sources permissible to the deletionists are in Portuguese, which is a bit of an obstacle to discussion.--S Marshall (talk) 19:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC).--Oh, I see they've already been deleted.

• You mean the only sources permissible to Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Verifiability (which requires a reliable source) is core policy and applies regardless of one's individual stance on notability. Let's not cloud the issue with partisan labels. Pagrashtak 19:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

If you view it as a pejorative to describe you as a "deletionist" in the context of this article, then I apologise. I assure you I didn't intend it as a pejorative, and I'd be quite happy to be characterised as an "inclusionist" in the context of this debate.--I am an AE player, though I don't view that as a COI since I'm not financially involved in the business and have nothing to gain from promoting it.--S Marshall (talk) 19:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't take it as a pejorative, although I find it inaccurate in my case—don't you think a true deletionist would have...actually said delete? I just want to make sure that if the article is kept, it is done so on reliable sources and not personal blogs. My real problem is that those labels set up an "us vs. them" mentality that splits editors into one of two camps and stifles true discussion. As you can see, you're already trying to assign me a camp into which I do not belong. My point is, whether you describe yourself as an "inclusionist" or "deletionist", that shouldn't affect your standards for reliable sources. Pagrashtak 00:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

On re-reading, I see that you haven't chosen to express a clear view on whether this article should be deleted. Do you have a contribution to make there, at all?--S Marshall (talk) 10:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I typically don't say one way or the other unless I search for sources myself, which I don't have the time or inclination to do right now. I do have time to question unreliable sources, however. Pagrashtak 13:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• Disagree with the removal of the review on the World Online Games. Most sites of the kind don't have any phone numbers or addresses on their webpages, but it doesn't make it any less reliable and it's a website dedicated to online games, mostly browser games, which is the genre of Astro Empires. Xaman79 (talk) 12:37, 01 August 2008 (UTC+1)
  • Then please show us why the source is reliable. You can say it all you want, but you need to back it up with something. Here are some quotes from Wikipedia:Reliable sources, which every good Wikipedia editor should read: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process" Now, can you show us why you believe World Online Games has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? Does it have a reliable publication process? Pagrashtak 13:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• • It's a review. While the publisher doesn't let us know his publication process (does the NYT on its website?), is there some reason to doubt this one? "trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." is what matters. If someone cited a source like this for a claim about Hitler, I'd strike it in a second. But for the subject at hand I have no problems with the source (which is why I added it to begin with). It goes to notability as a non self-published source. Hobit (talk) 14:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
    • So then I can set up a personal website, review any game I wish, and give it instant notability? I think not. You're absolutely correct about "trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." Show me a reliable source that considers WOG as trustworthy or authoritative and I'll have no problem with it. Pagrashtak 15:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• This is growing increasingly irrelevant to the question of whether this article should be deleted. If there were no references that met WP:V then this discussion would matter, but there are. Would you consider continuing this on your own talk pages?--S Marshall (talk) 16:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• Query - Would you consider GameZone to be a reliable source? They are working on a review of Astro Empires as we speak. Hopefully they will publish it before this article is deleted. Xaman79 (talk) 21:34, 01 August 2008 (UTC+1)

• Yes, it is, according to WP:VG/S. Hopefully, they do churn one out before then. (Not necessarily playing devil's advocate - just want to see some closure on this.) MuZemike (talk) 21:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

That'll be great. Even if the article is deleted in the mean time, it can easily be undeleted once the source exists. I don't think you'd even have to take it to deletion review, you should just be able to show the review to the closing admin and have it undeleted without any fuss. Pagrashtak 21:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion - How about we slow the train down a little? Considering that there are two sources already, there is potential for an encyclopedic article here. The article can just as easily left in place as deleted. How about we give this AfD closure, and start fixing up the entry? But, with the caveat: if the alleged GameZone article doesn't appear in a timely manner, then we will be right back at an AfD, armed with an agreement that the article will be deleted until better sources are available. This will allow us to reach consensus and foreshorten this current bureaucratic process right now. Additionally, with having reached this prior agreement, should we end up here in the future if the source doesn't come through the process will be hastened in that round as well. Save us all some time now and possibly later. -- Forridean ^(T/C) 02:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

No reason to. Articles are easy enough to resurrect after deletion. Should notable sources come to light after this AfD that would have changed the outcome, I would have no issue at all of backing a recreation of the article. That being said, I have long since lost count of the number of AfD discussions I have been in where "notable sources are coming! just wait a little longer!" And in only two cases do I ever remember those sources actually materializing afterwards. In the meantime, I continue to hold the same position - this article has not changed appreciably since the last time it was deleted. Trusilver 08:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Once AfD is rolling there are few reasons to not let the process continue, especially with so much input. Banjeboi 06:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• Agreed, but closer should perhaps add a note saying "no prejudice against recreation if additional RS review found" just to avoid DRV/speedy issues about article recreation. (assuming closer deletes and feels that's the right thing) Hobit (talk) 18:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

That is always assumed anyway. The most banal articles ever deleted are (or at least should be) given the right to be recreated should notable sources for them become available. Trusilver 23:23, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

True, but then someone comes along and speedies it because it's an article that is largely the same as a deleted one. Then it goes to DRV. Best to be clear. Hobit (talk) 00:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• Hold the salt — just in case this article is deleted, and I didn't make it clear earlier since this has been a rather long discussion.) MuZemike (talk) 05:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - Astro Empires has been added to GameZone (here), the review should be done soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xaman79 (talk • contribs) 05:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Okiefromokla ^questions? 00:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Kurt Schweizer

Kurt Schweizer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

• Delete. Non-notable American baseball writer. A Google search brings up little except for an unrelated German author with the same name. Apparent WP:COI issues too as seen on both sides of this diff. According to the latest talk page edit, the external links on the page will lead to "third party sources" but they seem to lead only to Mr. Schweizer's web content. De-prodded by Kinston eagle (talk · contribs). —Wknight94 (talk) 10:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Wknight94 (talk) 10:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I would recommend learning how to use Google properly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.153.69.31 (talk • contribs)

Also, when following links, go to the other links and then those links. It's pretty easy. You just point and click. And point and click again, etc. It isn't all that difficult. As far as the usage of Google, I wouldn't know how to help you. I am stumped on that one. Try contacting Google.com for some type of basic site user tutorial help or something of that nature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.153.69.31 (talk • contribs)

There is also a website known as yahoo.com, which has a search engine. If you haven't heard of it, try it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.153.69.31 (talk • contribs)

• Delete agree with nominator - websearch however many things you click shows this person has written articles about baseball - but nothing to indicate he passes Wikipedia's criteria for notability -Hunting dog (talk) 11:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Then I nominate approximately one half (50%) of wikipedia for deletion, for the same (or similar) criteria. You guys have your work cut out for you. Good luck. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.153.69.31 (talk • contribs)

Kurt Schweizer meets at least five (5) of the notability criteria. I am a good friend of his from the doctoral program. I see no reason for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.153.69.31 (talk • contribs)

• Strong keep , per above quote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.153.69.31 (talk • contribs)
  • What are these notability criteria? Blackngold29 16:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per lack of notability; he writes for the website of the "Fort Myers Miracle", a single A minor league baseball team whose entire roster had individual articles written about them last week. Unlike the bush league players, some of whom get a pass because of Wikipedia guidelines, writing about a minor league team is not inherently notable. Please feel free to nominate the other 1,250,000 articles described above. Mandsford (talk) 14:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

JUST PICK ONE OF THOSE OTHER ONE MILLION PLUS ARTICLES. IT'S LIKE FLIPPING A COIN OR HITTING WATER WHEN FALLING OUT OF A BOAT. WHY ARE ALL OF YOU TARGETING ALL PEOPLE FT MYERS MIRACLE WHEN THERE ARE MANY PLAYERS FROM VARIOUS OTHER ORGANIZATIONS AND TEAMS WHO HAVE BARELY PLAYED PAST HIGH SCHOOL WHICH WILL LIKELY BE ALLOWED TO STAY? MOST OF YOU KNOW VERY LITTLE OR NOTHNG ABOUT BASEBALL. IT IS A REAL SHAME THAT WE CAN'T GET A FEW EXPERTS TO LOOK INTO ALL OF THIS. THAT WOULD BE DOING A SERVICE TO WIKIPEDIA, INSTEAD OF A DISSERVICE, WHICH IS, FOR THE MOST PART, WHAT MOST OF YOU ARE DOING, ALL BECAUSE YOU APPARENTLY BECAME BORED WITH YOUR FANTASY LEAGUES AND HAVE NOTHING BETTER TO DO. AND THE REST OF YOU WHO HAVE LIKELY NEVER EVEN HEARD OF ANY BASEBALL TEAMS, OTHER THAN THE NEW YORK YANKEES, SHOULD STICK TO YOUR VARIOUS ARTS AND HUMANITIES ENTRIES. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.9.174.90 (talk) 02:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Google search does indicate little notability. Also recommend that anonymous' attempts to bait actual editors, along with his "Strong keep" vote, are completely ignored. JuJube (talk) 14:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Google News brings no hits, doesn't appear to be notable.--  Darth Mike  _{(Talk • Contribs)} 14:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete google search (for english sites) reveals nothing that discusses him at any length, but this: [7], articles taken from the wikipedia article, and mentions of a few unrelated people of the same name. A google news search reveals only one additional source that mentions him (others are in german, or clearly about unrelated person), but as with the miami new times article, the article isn't about him. The article is behind a paywall (it's FANS, MARLINS WEATHERING SWITCH TO NEW LAKES FIELD by the Miami Herald). Both articles are by Miami based newspapers, suggesting that even if he is notable in Miami, it isn't clear he's notable outside Miami. Silverfish (talk) 14:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete no notability assessed (I'm a writer, photographer and baseball historian), with no reliable or third party sources. Blackngold29 16:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

SHOULD THE 5 NOTABILITY POINTS WHICH ARE PRESENT (ACADEMICS, FILMS, MUSIC, ORGANIZATIONS AND WEB CONTENT) ALL BE IGNORED? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.9.174.90 (talk) 02:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you explain how each of those five notability sections are met? I'm not following what you're saying. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be sarcastic on this one, but I'm not sure I understand you. All five items are plainly obvious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.9.174.90 (talk) 02:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

They are not sourced. They need to be verifiable from reliable third party sources, or anybody could claim anything about anyone. Blackngold29 02:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you just reading the list in this template? Click on the links in there - each leads to a separate section of WP:N that gives notability guidelines for articles on those types of subjects. You're probably looking for WP:BIO, the guideline for biographical articles - like this one. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

What officially constitutes a "reliable" third party source? How are those sources proven to be reliable? You see what I mean? If you take this completely in the direction that you're heading, wikipedia will eventually resemble little more than the 1972 World Books on my grandmother's bookshelf. But, on the other hand, I don't know; maybe that's the way it SHOULD be. (But, is that the vision for wikipedia?) Either way, it should be evenly applied. And I think everyone is aware that it isn't. That is a major system-wide flaw. This is why there are so many critics of wikipeida. Many people feel that one may as well just get information from the general internet, where many of these third party sources are still there (for their original and main purpose, which is to share knowledge) and haven't been deleted because of some quasi-bureaucratic bulls**t. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.9.174.90 (talk) 03:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Nobody is updating your Grandma's World books thousands of times per second, so WP will never be like that; but that's a discussion for another place. You can see which sources are "reliable" here. Blackngold29 03:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

"Please note that the failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. These are merely rules of thumb used by some editors when deciding whether or not to keep an article that is on articles for deletion" -WP

The only other thing I'm going to add (unless asked) is that, in each and every case, Wikipedia should strive to be ABOVE the general internet and NOT strive to be BELOW it (which is certainly what is happening here.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.9.174.90 (talk) 03:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Dammit, why don't you simply mention "Kurt Schweizer" in the Fort Myers Miracle article? We got nothing against Kurt, but why do you think he needs his own separate page? Everything gets published on Wikipedia, but not everything gets to stay. I'm sure that Kurt will appreciate that you made a page in his honor and that it stayed up for awhile, and you can save it to your computer forever, but get over it. Mandsford (talk) 13:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, OK, but why does it "need" to be deleted? Obviously, arguments can be made for either case, but what harm does it do to just let it be?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.9.151.91 (talk) 13:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• The simple answer is that the Wikipedia system permits editors to limit the addition of articles; anyone has a right to propose that an article not become a permanent addition, and then any interested party may agree or disagree, after which another party makes a decision based on those arguments. Were the system not in place, then anyone could have an article about themselves on Wikipedia, including people who have not accomplished as much as Mr. Schweizer has accomplished. Following the guidelines and the procedures is the price of having an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Mandsford (talk) 16:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOHARM. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

dont see how that amounts to a reason in this case; however

• Delete There quite simply is no encyclopedic notability shown by our usual standards,even interpreted flexibly DGG (talk) 15:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, that all sounds reasonable. However, I know for certain that if one were to poll people who are actually IN the world of baseball and higher academics, (etc.), you would see very strong support for Kurt's page to stay. It's just a shame that the people on this page don't know that. (But, I do.) I'm not sure what else I can say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.9.150.111 (talk) 02:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• Delete As others have shown, subject doesn't meet Wikipedia notability standards. BRMo (talk) 22:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per above. Also, the argument of "there are other articles that aren't notable, too!" isn't a sufficient defense. When it comes down to it, this article still does not meet the guidelines. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 03:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Meets WP notability standard, based on the following: "Has been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network"-WP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.153.220.189 (talk • contribs) August 1, 2008

CommentWhat broadcast has he been the subject of? Silverfish (talk) 13:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

He was one of the main subjects of a PBS film, which was produced last year. The film's running time is 90 minutes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.153.220.170 (talk • contribs) 12:10, August 2, 2008

What was the name of the film? Silverfish (talk) 15:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

The film is "White Elephant". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.153.220.253 (talk) 05:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you talking about this thing? What is it? A one-page web site with an embedded 3-minute film? I'm confused. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I see where it is a television documentary on Miami Stadium - only problem is that I never see Kurt Schweizer's name mentioned. Surely you recognize what a terrible precedent it would be if we had an article on every single person who ever appeared in a television documentary on anything. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I can assure you that Kurt (and his name) are all over the thing. What kind of precedent is set by considering things to be notable only if YOU have seen them?--70.156.170.194 (talk) 20:49, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Keep per above. I have seen this movie on TV. Mr. Schweizer is, indeed, one of the main subjects, which clearly means he does indeed meet WP notability standards.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.153.220.253 (talk • contribs)

• Strong Keep as per above. --Fsl dude (talk) 08:07, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• Strongest Keep on a Hurculean Level per above. This clearly meets WP notability standards.--70.156.170.194 (talk) 20:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
• delete - no independent notability shown. Mukadderat (talk) 15:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The above comment about no inde. notability is obviously absurd, considering all of the above debate taken as a whole. This person has obviously performed no research on Schweizer whatsoever. I again assert that Schweizer very clearly meets WP notability standards for at least one (if not five) items. In other words, he has enough notability to go around for about 5 different people. Anyone who has taken the time to research this fact WILL very clearly find it.--70.156.170.194 (talk) 18:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• Delete even though it wouldn't assure his notability I have researched reviews of the "White Elephant" documentary [8], which seems to be very firmly about the ex-stadium and not about Mr Schweizer. Even if he did appear in it, that doesn't mean it was about him. Merely appearing as a journalist or protagonist for a campaign does not infer any notability. -Hunting dog (talk) 21:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC) oops sorry just realised I voted previously - still stand by that, after following debate and additional research - Hunting dog (talk) 21:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kodomo. Keeper ǀ 76 20:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Still Life (Kodomo Album)

Still Life (Kodomo Album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This album is yet to be released, with no evidence that it meets the notability criteria of WP:MUSIC Kevin (talk) 23:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, "unreleased albums are in general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources." No sign that this does. --Stormie (talk) 05:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Does not pass the notability requirements to my satisfaction. rootology (T) 14:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - a full length album by a notable artist. Also no crystal issues either --T-rex 23:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Sean Whitton / 10:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - no independent notability presented. Mukadderat (talk) 15:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --JForget 23:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The Thin White Line (EMS Emblem)

The Thin White Line (EMS Emblem) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This seems to be a hoax, and cannot meet WP:V or WP:N, with no hits on google. Furthermore I have been in EMS for over 10 years and have never heard of such a thing. There is how ever a "thin blue line" which is used in our police and law enforcement brothers and sister, but in no way shape or form has anything to do with this page. Medicellis (talk) 23:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. The Thin White Line seems to have a fair bit of use as a title for various things, but not as a concept in relation to any EMS. In this case it would seem to be a non-notable neologism. Kevin (talk) 00:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. To the extent this exists, it is not notable. I can find products with this emblem [9][10][11] but no independent coverage. | Talk 01:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• Keep: I am an EMS educator and I personally know EMT's (including myself) that display this emblem for the reasons stated in the original article. Products are available to EMS personel from sources such as: (http://www.rescuetees.com/category/show/4377). I provide them to students that pass their exams as a congratulations gift. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DragonFired (talk • contribs) — DragonFired (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

comment - I'm also a EMS educator and again have never heard of this before. Either way, it still does not meet WP:V or WP:N, as there are no reliable secondary documentation anywhere on the web other than a symbol to buy on a couple of very non-notable web stores. Also would like to point out also as WP:NEO. Due to these reasons this page does not meet wiki's rules for inclusion. Medicellis (talk) 23:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• Merge - to emergency medical services. It exists, but as a logo, there does not appear to be reliable sources writing about it to support a standalone article. -- Whpq (talk) 20:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Sean Whitton / 10:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Delete—I doubt the EMS article would have it. There's a couple products out there, but nowhere near as notable as the Thin Blue Line concept, and not notable enough for WP. Livitup (talk) 13:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete 2+ years in EMS, and this is the first I've heard of it. It may be locally notable somewhere, but the Google hits reflect a Family Guy episode, a TIME article on Portugal, Bird Flu, and a ton of other completely unrelated things. It certainly seems like a neologism to me. Jclemens (talk) 16:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete owing to having just called my brother who is an EMT in the Bronx, and having him do a quick poll of his co-workers, and none of them having heard of it. Ford MF (talk) 19:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
• Delete nonverifiable. Mukadderat (talk) 15:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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), as relisting garnered only one more keep and no others. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 05:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Remix Main Characters

Remix Main Characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

this is a cast of characters on a defunct show. I don't know how notable the show itself was and there are no references. ChiragPatnaik (talk) 09:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Lack of references is grounds for improvement, not deletion. (And the article definitely needs improvement.) The show being 'defunct' is not a grounds for deletion, either, otherwise it would be an acceptable reason to delete Star Trek, I Love Lucy, and every other TV show that has ceased production. Character articles are legitmate spinoff from main articles to to keep the main articles from growing too long. Edward321 (talk) 23:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment "Lack of references is grounds for improvement" is this policy in this case? Doesn't this open the door to fan-based original research or characters to every show? Can I watch a couple episodes and create a Characters of According to Jim? Drunken Pirate (talk) 21:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• Keep trim a little, and give some background. What I think we want is something midway between this over-expansive article and the over-brief treatment in the main one on the series. DGG (talk) 02:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. lifebaka++ 13:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Remix (STAR One)

Remix (STAR One) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

this is a defunct show. I don't know how notable. there are no references and is written somewhat like an advertisement. I'm not sure, if this article should be here ChiragPatnaik (talk) 09:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• Keep I only found one reliable source about it[12] but that's not surprising since its in Hindi. We need someone who speaks the language. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:53, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Lack of references is grounds for improvement, not deletion. (And the article definitely needs improvement.) The show being 'defunct' is not a grounds for deletion, either, otherwise it would be an acceptable reason to delete Star Trek, I Love Lucy, and every other TV show that has ceased production. Edward321 (talk) 23:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: is there a criterion for determining if a show is notable or not. I wonder if TV shows should be subject to enclyclopedia articles (unless thy can be stated as being highly popular or path breaking such as Survivor). I don't know if the TRP ratings of this show are available online. It was quite popular among the tenage crowd. but still Im not convinced that it should be the subject of an encyclop article.--Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 04:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per Edward321. Ford MF (talk) 19:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, move by Livitup endorsed. No need for further action. lifebaka++ 13:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Agot

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

Elementary schools are rarely notable, and this one isn't. PeterCantropus (talk) 09:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Weak delete According to the WP:SCHOOL guidelines, only degree granting schools and senior secondary schools are generally notable. It says here: 'For elementary and middle schools, reliable secondary sources are usually too limited for notability'; while there are exceptions, this school doesn't appear to meet them. Artene50 (talk) 09:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment WP:SCHOOL is a failed proposal at present as it has not gained consensus despite it being propsed for adoption on several occasions, so it's probably not appropriate to reference it. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 10:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 10:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Comment If the article were about the place where the school is located-- "Agot, Marinduque, the Philippines" -- then it would probably not be subject to deletion. I suggest that the author might want to rework the article, to make it about the village, and not just about the school itself. If that doesn't happen, however, then policy would require a deletion. Mandsford (talk) 14:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. As what User:Sky Harbor said in another school-related AfD... Philippine school articles, whether elementary or secondary, are listed for AFD usually because they are not notable outside the Philippines (or that schools in general are not always notable), but given that the basis for AFD would most likely be the content of the article (the locale and who the school is named after) and/or the lack of sources, I'd say that this article only needs a good bit of expansion. Please be careful about violating WP:BIAS. Starczamora (talk) 14:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. We keep saying "usually because they are not notable outside the Philippines". Is this school even notable inside the Philippines? Or is it even notable within MIMAROPA? --Howard the Duck 14:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Keep—I boldly moved this to Agot and identifed it as a barangay, cleaned up the details on the school, and tidied references. It's a stub, for sure, but suitable for inclusion now. Livitup (talk) 14:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse the move, even though it confuses the AfD, since Agot should probably exist as a place, and yes Agot Elementary School probably should not exist as a separate article. Jclemens (talk) 16:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse move: the school is not notable but can be mentioned in the context of the area. CRGreathouse (t | c) 17:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Given positions established on other barangay AFDs in the past, barangays in themselves are usually not notable and should only be created when the notability is already established. Moving the article on the school to a page on a barangay would complicate this guideline. However, as what I have said in another school AFD and as cited above, I will support the article's retention if notability can be established for this school (my family is not from Boac, rather, we are from Gasan, which is south of Boac, so I cannot help in this respect). I do question though the use of the school notability guideline, given that it never reached consensus. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 08:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: Actually, most of the time, barangay articles are kept. So I don't expect this will be deleted. I'd oppose creation of public elementary schools since most of the time they're not notable outside their municipality or even barangay. --Howard the Duck 13:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
    • In that case, let's propose a guideline on how to name barangay articles. All barangay articles should conform to this naming format: (barangay), (municipality/city), (province). This means that a barangay such as Barangay Agot in Boac should be moved to Agot, Boac, Marinduque (or Barangay Agot, Boac, Marinduque) if ever. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 11:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
      • I prefer Barangay Agot, Boac, Marinduque. I have done that in several barangay-related articles. Starczamora (talk) 13:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Endorse Move The article is not notable in itself, however, it is a good addition to the Agot article. IceUnshattered (talk) 23:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 he fails WP:ATHLETE. пﮟოьεԻ 57 15:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Rafael Cretaro

Rafael Cretaro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No indication as to why the player is notable. The League of Ireland is not fully professional, and so players in that league are not notable. – PeeJay 09:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. – PeeJay 09:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as player fails WP:ATHLETE. --Jimbo^[online] 12:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 16:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Perhaps I'm missing something here, but according to the article he's played for two FAI Premier Division teams; the top level of football in Ireland. League of Ireland doesn't exist any more. Nfitz (talk) 18:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, who says that the Irish league is notable. Punkmorten (talk) 19:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Don't be silly - of course it's notable. Nfitz (talk) 05:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Who says? It's not fully professional, and to pass WP:ATHLETE a player must have played in a fully professional league. As far as the article tells us, this player hasn't. – PeeJay 08:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Obviously common sense tells us that the highest level of soccer in a major European country that is mostly professional fits the bill. We've had precedents on that recently. WP:IAR. Nfitz (talk) 17:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 he fails WP:ATHLETE. пﮟოьεԻ 57 15:41, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Mirko Delia

Mirko Delia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Although notability is hinted at, this article does not explicitly indicate that this player has made a professional appearance, which he would need to have done to pass WP:ATHLETE. – PeeJay 09:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. – PeeJay 09:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Comment ESPN says he is an attacker on Catania here May be an indication that he will be playing for the team soon since he has reportedly signed a 5 year deal with the Seria A club as this Forum says. Artene50 (talk)
• Delete - the article itself states "Delia will have a hard time trying to gain a starting position, being that there are twelve listed strikers for Catania for the 08-09 season" - delete without prejudice to recreate if he does manage to force his way past 10 of those other strikers into the starting line-up....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Delete, as the player currently fails notability at WP:ATHLETE, until proof can be provided he's actually played in a notable league/competition. A fans forum is not a reliable source. --Jimbo^[online] 12:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 16:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, he was signed a month ago by Catania from an amateur side (Serie D league), and it's unlikely he will be part of the first team. --Angelo (talk) 21:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - Italian clubs routinely sign many players who have only a theoretical chance of playing for the first-team, and are instead loaned out or sent out on co-ownership deals for many seasons. In addition there is no Reserve League in Italy so there is no advantage for the club to keep these players on the squad to play them only in cup competitions.... in other words it's very likely this guy will never appear for Catania in a competitive match. ugen64 (talk) 04:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment he was born in 1989,[13] so he is more likely to be included in the club's under-20 Campionato Primavera squad. In any case, he is unlikely to be immediately part of the first team. --Angelo (talk) 07:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. Merges and traswikis left to editorial discretion. lifebaka++ 14:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Childe (World of Darkness)

Childe (World of Darkness) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

There are no references to demonstrate notability of this topic, and this is merely a recitation of plot and game information, resulting in a highly in-universe article. I don't think there's anything particularly redeeming in this article to save or merge into another one. The gist of the article is that "A childe is a child of a vampire". --Craw-daddy | T | 08:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

See also

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Discipline (World of Darkness)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Generation (World of Darkness)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. —--Craw-daddy | T | 08:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Transwiki to http://whitewolf.wikia.com/wiki/Childe Currently just a stub there, so I'd expect content would be welcome. Being a former WoD gamer, I believe you won't find notability that isn't in-universe. -Verdatum (talk) 15:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Transwiki and delete as in-universe game info. Jclemens (talk) 16:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 20:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Weak keep — This article has the potential to display some real-world fictional information (i.e. information about vampires) provided it is cleaned up. MuZemike (talk) 02:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
• Merge in some appropriate place among the articles on this fictional universe. As usual in instances like this. DGG (talk) 15:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

With respect DGG, what should be merged, and what's the target? There doesn't seem to be much out-of-universe material here to save, and a lot of the other articles on this fictional universe (in Category: World of Darkness and its subcategories) have similar notability problems. Merging this material will just shift the problem to the new target. --Craw-daddy | T | 14:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• Keep per Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, unoriginal research, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world) and What Wikipedia is. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Sigh, where's the evidence of notability in terms of reliable independent references? Essays do nothing to demonstrate notability of this topic. --Craw-daddy | T | 21:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I have begun revising the article in a manner that would include reliable independent references (just getting started as I want to see if I can find anything on creation/influence). --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. There are no references to demonstrate the notability of this topic, and this is simply a regurgitation of plot details with only in-universe information. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 04:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I have begun adding reliable indepdent references with out of universe commentary. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. The single relevant ref in this article is...use of the term in a description of what Vampire: the Masquerade is. Thus, we can similarly describe it with a half-sentence in the main VTES article. No merge is needed to describe this non-notable topic which happens to mean roughly what it means in English. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Anything that can be covered in other topics is a cause for a redirect without deletion as a worst case scenario. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
    • No content worth merging. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
      • The two indicated references provide out of universe context that would be useful in other articles as well. No need to redlink this article per User:T-rex/essays/the more redirects the better. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
        • The former ref only uses the term in passing, the latter ref is talking about an entirely different fictional work. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
          • Then an alternate possibility would be to merge this article with Childe and redirect there and cover the various uses of the term or to Childe (vampire) (switch the current redirect situation) and focus on how the term is used in that context. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
            • No merge is necessary. You've added the only sourced claim to that article already, and as the original contributor of that sourced claim no GFDL concern arises. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
              • Outright deletion isn't necessary either as it's clearly a legitimate search term and there's no harm in keeping the edit history public. Actually we gain something from that when considering RfAs. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
                • So you've found a reliable source that felt the need to comment on this subject other than in passing?
                  Filibuster elsewhere. You've stated that you don't feel that the article needs to be deleted. We get it. Stop repeating it unless you have something new to say. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
                  • That source and the other source can be used in an article on Childe (vampire), which is where this article originally came from. We could revise this article to be back about the general use of that term, move it back to Childe (vampire) and then redirect Childe (World of Darkness) to there. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
                    • So you want to rewrite this article into an entirely different form, then merge it to an article that is related to that entirely different form? Why don't you just write a different article? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
                      • I'm hesitant to do any bold merging during an AfD. This article was originally Childe (vampire), which I think is a more sustainable article based on searches, however, someone moved it here and then redirected that article to this article. I am suggesting moving back to there, using the relevant information from this article in the rewrite and then redirecting this article to what was originally intended. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
                        • If you'd like to write childe (vampire), go for it. Here's a link. But the single sourced or sourceable claim in this article is already in childe, so this isn't needed for any merge. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

• Keep has an external reference and vampire/human hybrid is a notable theme in fiction. It is in-universe as written. I have not looked at the rest of the vampyre content in detail to determine where a merge could go but that may be a possibility. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

  We have another article on other contexts, which, despite its brevity, already covers this subject in an appropriate level of detail.
  Moreover, this article is not about vampire/human hybrids. The lack of critical examination of the article calls into doubt whether you examined the single in-passing reference critically. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

  Aha. ok (1) I like the idea of a merge with that article, thankyou for pointing that out to me, and (2) don't make assumptions on how I look at things. I have a different yardsticks to you, and I generally listen more to folks who contribute something positive in content to the 'pedia. I'll unwatch this now. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

  Either the article is so misleading as to confuse, or you did not fully read the article. Neither speaks well to your argument to keep, as you're claiming that an unrelated concept may be notable.
  What sourced or sourceable content would you want to merge? Other than in the lead, this article is composed entirely of game rules or setting detail for a defunct role-playing game. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 a7, no legitimate claim of notability, no sources. NawlinWiki (talk) 11:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

BMX.

BMX. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I do not see any sign of notability, and it seems to me that a sentence like "people in the industry are really starting to recognise the little known BMX", even accepting its weasely wording as true, is an indication of non-notability. Goochelaar (talk) 08:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 09:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete I had previously tagged this for speedy deletion, refused here. Buggered if I can see any claim of notability, certainly there is no evidence to support any such claim. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 09:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete No indication of notability and no reliable sources. Artene50 (talk) 09:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete don't think it meets speedy criteria because the assertion of top 10 position on unearthed attempts to claim some notability. I don't think its enough for WP:BAND though -Hunting dog (talk) 09:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - #9 on the triple-J unearthed Dance chart is not a big deal. Having a single live radio interview is also not. About as notable as any other almost completely unknown band - Peripitus (Talk) 09:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete fails notability and verifiability criteria Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy delete as an obvious hoax. Kevin (talk) 12:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

2003 Belgian Grand Prix

2003 Belgian Grand Prix (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is about a race that never happened, the content is entirely made up. The Belgian Grand Prix was not on the Formula One calendar in 2003 due to a tobacco advertising ban. The- (talk) 08:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - nonsense article. The race never happened, as can be quickly confirmed on sites like grandprix.com and BBC Sport and of course, it's not listed in the article on the 2003 Formula One season. --Xagent86 (Talk | contribs) 09:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete if the race never happened this article is blatant misinformation and therefore speediable as vandalism. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - sure looks like a hoax according to this article and this article, . BWH76 (talk) 10:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete WP:CSD#G3 for "blatant and obvious misinformation".  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 12:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 00:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Blofield United F.C.

Blofield United F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Football club which fails to meet the generally accepted notability criteria of having played at Step 6 or in the FA Cup or FA Vase (last 11 AfDs have all resulted in delete for clubs in this situation - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11). пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. The last 11 successful ones perhaps. You are failing to list the ones that get withdrawn because during the AFD process it comes out that the team is actually notable after all. The whole point of AFD is to have a process to have people peer-review it, so that there is some consensus, rather than simply trying to slide it through by PRODing the article and failing to list it at WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. I'm surprised at your sarcasm given the number of your club AFDs that you've withdrawn recently. Nfitz (talk) 08:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I have not failed to list any AfDs where clubs in this situation have not been deleted - the ones I have linked to are the 11 most recent AfDs on such clubs (the fact that some clubs were kept (as I withdrew them from the nomination) in number 11 is due me being confused over the place of the Hampshire League in the pyramid, and as I clearly stated in the introduction, all the clubs in the AfD that did fail to meet the criteria were deleted). Could you also point out where I have been sarcastic here? пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I am uneasy with Nfitz's comment here, which is focused on the nominator. Perhaps Nfitz would like to redact his comment and instead comment on the subject of the article and on whether it should be kept or deleted. Regards, --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 08:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Fair enough, I was reacting to what appears to be a personal attack in the edit summary of the article where the AFD was introduced. But you are correct, that shouldn't come into play here. I've redacted part of my comment and will deal with elsewhere. The other part is simply a response to the nomination, which overlooks that the majority of similiar articles in his last AFD were withdrawn because they recognised as notable once a full discussion was held. As to whether this article should be deleted - I'm reserving judgement. The team has won a Step 7 league 3 times in the last 8 years, and as I understand it, wasn't promoted to Step 6 (apparently making them notable) because their grounds were not suitable? Nfitz (talk) 09:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - I don't see "they would have been promoted to Step 6 if only they hadn't had a rubbish ground" as a compelling reason to ignore the long-standing consensus that Step 7 clubs are not notable. Google turns up no reliable sources to get them through the general guidelines either..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  • understandable - I had removed the Prod because it seemed to be a little close the line for just a Prod. Nfitz (talk) 19:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 16:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• I don't think even a majority of clubs at Step 5 and 6 meet general wikipedia guidelines to notability - multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable sources etc. I cannot find any worthwhile third-party coverage for this club, so it's a Delete from me. If User:Nfitz or anyone else can find such sources, I'll be happy to change my mind. - fchd (talk) 18:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Question. Any reason it shouldn't simply be redirected to Anglian Combination or Blofield? That might be a better process than proding or AfDing these silly little articles. Nfitz (talk) 19:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect to Anglian Combination, there's no assertion of notability here, it's only two sentences long, and Anglian Combination is clearly a parent article. --Stormie (talk) 12:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Non notable. BigDunc^Talk 18:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect to Anglian Combination per Stormie. Nfitz (talk) 17:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy keep per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure). Ruslik (talk) 11:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Adolescent sexuality in the United States

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Adolescent sexuality in the United States
• Articles for deletion/Adolescent sexuality in the United States (2nd nomination)

Adolescent sexuality in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I have to say, this article represents a significant content fork. An article about adolescent sexuality in the United States should contain information specific to the United States, which would encompass statistical information related to the United States, or information that is only applicable to the United States. That being said, this content makes up a small minority of the article, with the vast majority of the article being a very heavily unbalanced discussion of adolescent sexuality as a general subject. Now, I’m not one to suggest that articles should be deleted just because they have some sort of POV, but because the amount of information that actually relates to the subject of the article itself is so scarce, and would not logically need its own article beyond its section in adolescent sexuality, then the article itself represents an unnecessary fork. Calgary (talk) 07:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, fairly strongly. The subject is fairly obviously notable, if only because public comment and media interest in the sex lives of adolescents, usually accompanied by various sorts of handwringing and calls for the government to Do Something, is a very prominent part of the national psychopathology of the United States. Yes, this article has serious POV problems. It is also fairly full of useful material. This calls for further editing, not deletion. - 24.235.22.24 (talk) 13:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• That's me. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - i don't see any pov issues, and even then that isn't a reason to delete --T-rex 14:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Keep PoV looks largely okay, though it has some problems in different sections. But that's an editing problem. Looks good. Hobit (talk) 18:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Keep There's plenty of US-focused content and sources in this article to justify a keep. Editing yes, and I would appreciate the help trying to make it more neutral and more soundly sourced, issues I have been trying to deal with for months, often going one-on-one with a single fairly intransigent editor. Deletion, no. --Sfmammamia (talk) 00:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• Keep It sounds like the nominator would rather the article be merged or renamed. I disagree regardless. Maxamegalon2000 02:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. John254 02:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Human trafficking in Serbia

Human trafficking in Serbia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article is an opinionated and unencyclopedic political rant based on original research and/or copied directly from an outside source, complete with a navigation box at the bottom full of nonexistent links. Beemer69 ^chitchat 07:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Keep (as author). This admittedly needs cleanup but is a good start to an article. It is copied from a public domain US government report. The navbox will be filled up as more articles are added. The fastest way to build wikipedia's poor coverage of human trafficking is to start with these reports--I can create about one of these a minute. A person looking for information about human rights in Serbia would certainly do better with this than nothing. To write articles of comparable quality from scratch would take months. Calliopejen1 (talk) 07:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• But Wikipedia is not a mirror. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a collection of previously published material, even if this material is in the public domain. Calgary (talk) 07:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• But this is the start of an encyclopedia article! Nor was wikipedia a mirror of Britannica when it used Britannica articles as starting points for articles, nor a mirror of the library of congress when its country reports are used to create articles like Precolonial Mauritania. If we should have an article on human trafficking in Serbia (which I don't think is disputed), I believe this is a helpful starting point. Calliopejen1 (talk) 08:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• But as it stands the current article is not an encyclopedia article. Any stage of an encyclopedia article, no matter how early on in its development, is still distinctively recongizeable as an encyclopedia article. Now, perhaps the subject is notable, perhaps there could be an article on the subject, but what currently exists is just the foundation to something that may at some point become an encyclopedia article. What we have right now is a source. And as I understand it, Wikipedia policy has traditionally been to use information from reliable sources to write original encyclopedic articles, never to copy source material, then edit it until it becomes distinctly different/encyclopedic. Calgary (talk) 08:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• That's simply not correct. This will not require that much editing to become a decent article, and is far better than most new articles anyways. Wikipedia has a long history of copying source material--see Wikipedia:Public domain resources. How is this fundamentally different than Precolonial Mauritania? If this were sourced to fifty different references (one for each sentence) but had similar tone problems, would it be deleted? Of course not. This is a matter for cleanup, not deletion. Calliopejen1 (talk) 08:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• I wouldn't say that this is a matter of cleanup. The problem isn't that the quality of the article needs to be significantly improved, it's that the article needs to undergo significant change in order for it to actually qualify as an article. And no, I wouldn't say that Precolonial Mauritania is any different. Calgary (talk) 09:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree then. By your logic, the entire History of Cambodia series, for instance, would have to be deleted too! (It's been around for years, by the way.) Calliopejen1 (talk) 09:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Keep on merits of the subject (which obviously can be written about) and creator... but, it obviously needs cleanup or it will have to be trimmed down a bunch. gren グレン 11:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, wikify and find additional references. Valid subject. --Soman (talk) 13:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, certainly seems like a valid and notable topic. That it needs cleaned up is not a reason to delete. Umbralcorax (talk) 13:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Valid and notable topic; it belongs to "Human trafficking by country" series. There are some problems as usual, but they can be fixed including additional referencing.Biophys (talk) 21:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Merge this, and all of the new human trafficking articles Calliopejen1 is busily making for every country in the world, into a suitable place. I agree entirely that human trafficking is probably not as thoroughly covered here as it should be, but these articles are cut & paste jobs from This website that do not differ substantially from one another. They all seem to be based on fill-in-the-blank templates, so the article for one country is unlikely to differ much from a neighbouring country's, and for this reason the articles should be merged. I'd fully support a stand-alone article for individual countries where the human trafficking situation stands out in some way from other countries- that is, more is required than just a generic report from a single website. Reyk _YO! 02:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• A brief response: Just to note, that site is a mirror of the original source, which is the US govt. They are clearly built around a template, but the information in each article is completely different from every other article. I can't think of a place where these could be merged to. The situation in each country is quite different, since prosecution etc. is clearly domestic, so it makes little sense generally merge these into regional articles. Do you have a suggestion of where these could be merged? Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
• We do have a history of filling in article sets from public domain sources and while... in 2008 this is less palatable than when we did it in 2004, it is not a practice worthy of deletion when the subject is notable and the information sourced and informative (even if not fully encyclopedic in tone). This might be reflective of my eventualist tendencies, but they are not doing any harm, are sourced, and better than a vast number of articles we have. gren グレン 04:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• I'm always suspicious of fill-in-the-gaps article sets, where the articles are created simply for the sake of having the article. this discussion and this one should explain why. I'll bow to consensus on these ones though. Reyk _YO! 05:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• Those are being deleted for non-notability, so I don't see the comparison.... All wikipedia articles are created "simply for the sake of having an article"! Calliopejen1 (talk) 07:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW closure. The articles fail WP:V, which is policy. I have carried out an extensive search for sources and found none. TerriersFan (talk) 21:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

KNEXVILLE

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

Massive lack of references, I can not find any thing. Can you or is it a hoax or mearly mega non-notable? triwbe (talk) 07:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC) I also inlcuding the following as rides at the above park.

The Gold Rush! (talk)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. —triwbe (talk) 07:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete possible hoax; not a single mention anywhere on the web (as far as I could tell), the only external link is to a website of a toy company. If not a hoax then it is entirely unnotable; only opened a couple (3) days ago and as said, complete lack of sources. - Icewedge (talk) 07:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Google search turns up nothing but a deleted Wiki article related to the subject. Non-notable. Beemer69 ^chitchat 07:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:HOAX Website doesn't mention a park. Artene50 (talk) 09:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete both - probable hoax, certainly NN, may be indirect SPAM - there is an external link to a toy company called K'NEX, and the author's talk page is full of spam warnings. JohnCD (talk)
• Delete both Somehow, I get the feeling that there's this kid in Summerlin, Nevada, who has spent the summer building an entire amusement park out of his K'nex toys. School begins soon. Mandsford (talk) 14:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete both - i'm thinking hoax --T-rex 14:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Punkmorten (talk) 09:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Luke Bolland

Luke Bolland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable radio announcer and comedian. Previously deleted through the PROD process Mattinbgn\^talk 06:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 06:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete no news articles, trivial number of web hits, given the creating username perhaps an autobiographical article ? Noone reliable has written about it and the article fails to be notable in any way. - Peripitus (Talk) 08:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - notability not established, and no reliable sources are forthcoming to support any such assertion of notability.  Frank  |  talk  16:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. See the credits listed at IMDb, http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1222214/ --Eastmain (talk) 18:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  • A listing in imdb does not confer notability. This person does not (right now) appear to pass WP:ENTERTAINER.  Frank  |  talk  18:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, according to IMDB, a few bit parts and not much else. I was able to find a few references to him in online sources, but they're all trivial mentions, directory entries, and the like. Not convinced that he meets the WP:ENTERTAINER notability criterial. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 14:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC).
• Delete: A credit on IMDb means nothing. Anyone can get a credit there. Literally. I want to see independent articles that show how Bolland's activities are notable. None have been provided so far. Therefore, delete. --Lester 20:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete: This article is based on unverified claims that Mr Bolland is a notable actor, comedian and radio announcer. Actors, comedians and radio announcers are not automatically entitled to a biographical article on WP. Notability must be demonstrated. No such demonstration has been made in Mr Bolland's case. Dolphin51 (talk) 03:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 think the consensus is clear here Kevin (talk) 01:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Qantas Flight 692

Qantas Flight 692 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable. Even less notable than Qantas Flight 30, which is also a candidate for deletion. We do not care about every tiny incident that happens on a flight. This single paragraph could be placed on Qantas. Delete. BG (talk) 06:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Delete Not notable --Emperor Genius (talk) 06:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Delete- Wikipedia is not a news service. Reyk _YO! 07:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Delete Not important, and does not warrant its own article by a longshot.Beemer69 ^chitchat 07:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 08:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 08:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Except this incident is not even worth a mention in the main Qantas article. If this minor malfunction didn't happen so close to Flight 30, would anyone have noticed? A routine turnback. No injuries, no serious damage to the plane. Not notable. • Gene93k (talk) 08:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per Reyk. This is the end result when creation of articles such as Qantas Flight 30 is encouraged. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 09:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator - I can understand Mattingbn's concern as well SatuSuro 09:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and WP:NOT#NEWS. Given that this is a very minor incident it shouldn't be merged with Qantas - it's hardly rare for commercial airliners to turn back in flight due to a fault. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Not notable. BWH76 (talk) 10:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete but do stop the attacks on flight 30. You are allowed to think that not notable as well, but they are miles apart as far as circumstances go. Now that's out of the way, back on topic: the article's only real claim to notability is the close proximity of the event to another more significant one. It may be worth a brief mention there ("when another Qantas flight, a 737 operating as flight 692, had pressurisation problems a few days later, some passengers refused transport on another Qantas plane due to the two events.") but no more. If they hadn't refused the alternative plane then this would have no link to that other flight at all, and such a tiny connection does not establish notability. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 12:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Minor event, probably occurs every day somewhere in the world. WWGB (talk) 13:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete This is more of a "copycat" article. Like Sandman says, this is not in the same league as Qantas Flight 30, which made front page headlines worldwide. Don't get the idea that you can write an article every time you hear of an airline incident. Mandsford (talk) 14:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - not notable. Planes have to land for quick repairs all the time. This is nowhere near the same level as Qantas Flight 30 --T-rex 14:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete -- a very NN incident. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Already gone: 11:42, 31 July 2008 Jimfbleak (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Satya Paul" ‎ (G11: Blatant advertising) TravellingCari 18:55, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Satya Paul

Satya Paul (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A giant advertisement for a company. I can't understand some/a lot of it and what looks like the reference section is a mess. Delete as advertising. Undeath (talk) 04:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Delete nothing but vanispamcruftisement. Reyk _YO! 05:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, blatant advertising. JIP | Talk 05:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• weak keep It needs to be rewritten, but this is apparently a high-end Indian fashion company, which I think could be considered notable. This is an article from an Indian newspaper: [14]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Theshibboleth (talk • contribs) 06:01, 29 July 2008
• Delete Unencyclopedic and is clearly advertising. Beemer69 ^chitchat 07:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete May be a notable topic, but there's no content worth salvaging in the current article. Calliopejen1 (talk) 07:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy delete unapologetic advertising copy (so tagged), probably also WP:COPYVIO. Ohconfucius (talk) 10:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 22:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Hamilton municipal election, 2010

Hamilton municipal election, 2010 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Pure crystal balling. A list of "Potential candidates" for a local election that is still 2 years away. According to the provided sources, there won't be actual confirmed nominees until at least January 2010.Beeblbrox (talk) 04:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Revisions have been made to adhere more closely to known facts (announcments of candidacies, issues, etc.). Also, please see Norfolk County municipal election, 2010 and Ottawa municipal election, 2010 which have existed for quite some time. If any further update is needed to save this page, please inform me of which wikipedia standards it does not meet. DaHamiltonian (talk) 1:28, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

Strong Keep Meets wikipedia standards, not crystal balling.

Comment The only part that seems like it's crystal balling is the issues section. Otherwise it seems accurate, and at some point the article should exist. I don't know whether it should exist already, but I believe the decision regarding U.S. presidential elections was that no articles should exist for elections beyond the first upcoming one. Theshibboleth (talk) 06:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

yes, language like will be a major issue, will likely be ongoing, will be of particular concern to residents etc show clear original research in that they are predictions of future events, along with is expected to seek another term as mayor.. As for other,similar articles that is not generally considered a valid argument. Beeblbrox (talk) 06:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Once the Original Research and Crystalballing are removed, the article makes no claim of notability for this municipal election. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 08:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Strong delete The actual election almost certainly isn't going to be notable and this is pure crystal ball gazing. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - Aside from the obvious crystal balling, there is no claim of notability for this election. BWH76 (talk) 10:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - as crystal balling --T-rex 14:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Keep as stub I think it's small.. meets some standards. Just keep as a stub.--Xxhopingtearsxx (talk) 08:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment: How, if I may ask, is there no claim of notability for this election? — [[User:DaHamiltonian (talk)|DaHamiltonian (talk)]] ([[User talk:DaHamiltonian (talk)|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/DaHamiltonian (talk)|contribs]]) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 18:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• reply While I did not specifically mention notability in the nomination, I think I understand the point those 2 are trying to make. The article does not even give enough context to determine what province of Canada Hamilton is located in, it gives no indication of the size of Hamilton and no indication that this is anything more than a local election that will not affect anyone not living in Hamilton, and candidates won't even be confirmed for another year and a half. Beeblbrox (talk) 21:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I have further revised the article, attempting to make it more factual and notable. From past experience, I know that, although candidates will not be confirmed for a year and a half, many people will begin announcing their intentions to stand in a few months, closer to the two year mark for the election. Hamilton is a city of nearly three quarters of a million people and one with a very heated political scene. I will again state that I believe this page is very relevant and will continue to be updated as the election draws nearer. DaHamiltonian (talk) 03:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• reply The point is that there really isn't any confirmed information to report here. You have stated what you think will be the relevant issues, and have stated that you believe this is a notable topic, but the sources you provide are an official government page that states that yes, an election will be held in two years, and some blogs, which are not considered reliable sources. You may be right about what the relevant issues will be in 2010, but predictions simply aren't appropriate content for an encyclopedia. And there is still no real information indicating why this future local election is notable enough for an encyclopedia entry. There are literally thousands of local elections scheduled all over the world in the 2010, but very few, if any, of them are notable enough at this early date for an entry.Beeblbrox (talk) 06:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Delete - per wp crystal^MY♥_INchile 23:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.   jj137 (talk) 21:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Ayaz samoo

Ayaz samoo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Ghits confirm this person exists, but I am unconvinced of how much notability his comedy awards confer. Not a lot, I suspect, based on Geogre's Law and the fact that the article creator is a single purpose account with a possible conflict of interest. Reyk _YO! 04:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Delete unless some references can be provided quickly. Deb (talk) 20:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• Delete -- notability unestablished. RayAYang (talk) 20:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - not verified notability Mukadderat (talk) 15:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 WP:CSD#A1: despite the voluminous content, there was not enough context to identify the subject of the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Oscar my Black Lab

Oscar my Black Lab (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

If only CSD A7 included animals..... - Icewedge (talk) 04:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhilKnight (talk) 06:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

GDrive

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/GDrive
• Articles for deletion/GDrive (3rd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/GDrive (4th nomination)
• Articles for deletion/GDrive (second nomination)

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

• This is an article about a rumored future product which is only speculated to exist. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.
• An article with this name has been AFDed twice before, and both times, the result was delete. The reasons used then still apply now.
• All of the cited sources are fundamentally deficient in at least one way.
  • "GDrive Client Leaked" — You'll notice that the software in question is actually called "Platypus", and not "GDrive". The author makes a completely unsubstantiated claim that Platypus will be "GDrive". To me, that verges on failing to verify. Certainly, some speculative blog post is not a reliable source.
  • "GDrive.com owned by Google" — Another blog full of speculation; not a reliable source. More importantly, it demonstrably fails verification:
    • http://www.gdrive.com self-identifies as "Web.com", not Google.
    • It is true that both gdrive.com and google.com are registered through MarkMonitor. That means nothing. MarkMonitor is a domain name registrar; any number of companies use them.
    • The actual registrants are different for the two domain names:
      • google.com is registered to "Google, Inc." (source)
      • gdrive.com is registered to "DNStination, Inc." (source)
  • "GDrive is Here" is again not talking about GDrive, but the fact that Google is selling more storage space on their GMail and Picasa services.
• Most of the pages which link to GDrive are related to the fact that it doesn't belong. AFDs, AFD notices, COI reports, spam reports, someone's to-do list, articles to be created, etc. The only real exception would be Platypus (disambiguation), which itself states GDrive is nothing more than rumor.
• While there may be rumors about "GDrive":
  • The rumors are not notable by Wikipedia standards, as far as I can tell
  • There are no reliable sources discussing the rumors in any substantial way
  • Any attempt by Wikipedians to gauge the pervasiveness of the rumors would be original research
• Even if we could find a reliable source on the rumors, I don't think that would constitute enough information to write a proper article.
  • Mention of it on the List of Google products page or similar might be warranted (if properly cited), but that's it.
• When and if an actual, notable product called "GDrive" is announced/created, then the article should be created. Until and unless that happens, no.

In short, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and this isn't an encyclopedic subject. Still.

—DragonHawk (talk|hist) 04:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Delete- per all the excellent reasons above. This AFD nomination is vastly superior to the article itself. Reyk _YO! 05:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete there is just not much more to say, all is said above. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• An order of Delete with a dash of Salt - More quality in the AFD than the article. And all the points are hit by the nom. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 15:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as while this is a subject close to my own heart, it does not (yet) have a place in an encyclopaedic collection. Looking forward to seeing it re-appear, post release. samj (talk) 06:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --JForget 23:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

William Stewart Boyd

William Stewart Boyd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A Circuit Court Judge does not seem to be a position that provides inherent notability. He was apointed, not elected so the politician standings don't appear to apply here. By the article's own admission, and what I can find on a search, his sole claim to notability is a June 2007 divorce decision. The decision is labeled as historic but if that were true (can't find evidence that it is) it doesn't mean he's encyclopedically notable. Neither of the parties in the divorce appear to have their own articles leading me to believe that they aren't notable and neither is their divorce, so nowhere to merge. TravellingCari 03:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. -- TravellingCari 03:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- TravellingCari 03:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Trial court-level judges, such as the subject, are not inherently notable. There are over 400 judges in the Circuit Court of Cook County who serve alongside this judge. [15] --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Notability is premised on nothing more than that he was assigned a notable case... and even the case apparently wasn't notable enough to merit its own article. Mandsford (talk) 13:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - ordinary person. Mukadderat (talk) 15:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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: G3 Vandalism. Mattinbgn\^talk 04:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Australias greatest sporting legends

Australias greatest sporting legends (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A textbook example of OR. - Icewedge (talk) 03:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- TravellingCari 04:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- TravellingCari 04:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete- and tagged as such, because it's a load of bovine excrement. Reyk _YO! 04:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Punkmorten (talk) 08:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The Adventures Of Anthropology Man & Crap Boy Movie

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/The Adventures Of Anthropology Man & Crap Boy Movie

The Adventures Of Anthropology Man & Crap Boy Movie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Low budget movie. I get the feeling that it will be released on YouTube and the budget is limited by the producers' pocket money. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 03:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, fails notability per WP:NFF.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 03:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable movie. JIP | Talk 05:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Article is utter nonsense. Beemer69 ^chitchat 07:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 11:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete due to lack of notability. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 11:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Upcoming YouTube "film" which does not meet any of the WP:NF criteria. PC78 (talk) 11:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - even if this didn't fail WP:CRYSTAL I feel that it wouldn't pass WP:N anyhow --T-rex 14:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete without prejudice. First and only article by User talk:4449steam, who appears unaware of guidelines. Its a totally unsourced article, so fails under Wikipedia:V and Wikipedia:RS. Suggest user moves article to a sandbox for improvement and returns it with cites proving existance and notability. A pre-traier is online and there is info out there: {[16], [17]). This article was premature. Michael Q. Schmidt (talk) 18:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --PeaceNT (talk) 06:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Gabrielle Geiselman

Gabrielle Geiselman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

An SPA's article on a youngish photographer who has verifiably done work that is good or commercial or both (and that, in my unimportant opinion, shows promise). The trouble is all of the content is sourced to Geiselman herself or to similarly dodgy places. Geiselman appears on sites that will profile photographers who want to be profiled, she appears in Flickr, etc., but none of this adds up to much. Meanwhile, I don't yet see any mention of a solo exhibition or of a book, and I certainly don't see substantial critical commentary. -- Hoary (talk) 03:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of History of photography-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 03:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - unless good third-party sources come to light. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 04:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Ned Scott 04:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Gsearch turns up a distinct lack of sources showing notability. 0 gnews hits; 0 SFGate hits (the web site for her hometown newspaper); 0 LA Times hits (the newspaper where she currently lives).--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. no independent notability given. Mukadderat (talk) 15:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. If anyone wants the content userfied with which to create smaller articles, let me know.. Tan ǀ 39 00:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

List of municipal parks in the United States

List of municipal parks in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

An indiscrimate list that will be next to impossible to complete or verify. Lists of this type would be better left to smaller jurisdictions. Millbrooky (talk) 03:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - Fundamentally unmaintainable in this form. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 04:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete I cannot imagine a useful purpose for this list. A while back on the article talk page, I asked "What is the intended purpose of this list? I cannot imagine why anyone would want a list of all the municipal parks in the United States." No one replied. Also, as noted by by nominator and Morven, the list is fundamentally unmaintainable. It is pathetically under-populated relative to the universe of US municipal parks (my city of 28,000 people has 12 parks; do the arithmetic to estimate how many city parks there probably are nationwide), the vast majority of which are not notable. --Orlady (talk) 04:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Keep There are far stupider lists on Wikipedia, and while I can't possibly think of one, the time may come where the location of all municipal parks is needed. Update the list, but still, keep.
• Delete, "stupider" lists might exist, but this one would be huge if complete. Lists of park districts by state, maybe. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 08:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Municipal parks are important, but they are properly listed in the article about the municipality. I appreciate the effort thus far made by the author, but there are thousands and thousands of municipal parks. A complete list would be unlikely, and even if compiled, too voluminous to read and too impractical to maintain. I had to laugh at the statement "There are far stupider lists", which is a good example of "damning with faint praise", isn't it? "Don't feel bad Timmy, there are a lot of kids who are stupider than you are." Technically, the term would be "more stupid". As with the word "gullible", you won't find "stupider" in the dictionary, no matter how many dictionaries you look at, so don't feel too bad. Mandsford (talk) 13:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Keep and consider at the talk page whether to split it up by state. "Too long" is not reason for deletion, just for division. DGG (talk) 15:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - For clarification, when I mentioned smaller jursidictions in my nom, I was thinking city level, since even at the state level, this list would likely be unwieldly. Kansas City, St. Louis, and Springfield, Missouri have combined a population of ~950,000 and ~400 parks. This may translate to over 2000 municipal parks for the state of Missouri alone, the vast majority of which are not notable. I am aware that List of Registered Historic Places in St. Louis County, Missouri has ~500 entries and Missouri as a whole may have more than 2000, but every one of these entries is notable. --Millbrooky (talk) 16:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment - At this time, sending the contents to municipalities would be pretty easy. As currently constituted, most of entries on the list are from just a handful of municipalities (notably including Chicago; Omaha; Philadelphia; Newport News; Peoria, Arizona; and Irvine, California). --Orlady (talk) 16:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. John254 02:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

XX Teens

XX Teens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Whilst their notability is asserted as well as possible given the young band, there is nothing in this group of articles which may indicate at how this band, or any of its "singles", meet the criteria set out in WP:MUSIC or WP:SONG. It is signed to a major independent record label, fine, and have been on the cover (only?) of a magazine... But they appear not to have been in a nation-wide tour, nor is their any proof offered that their singles have been placed on rotation by a national radio station? The sources and references are not independent of the band. Their singles are also nominated for deletion today (first nomination below) WP is not Myspace. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Keep passes WP:MUSIC#C1, [18], [19], [20]. Their song "Darlin'" was included in NME’s tracks of 2007 as well. Delete the non-notable songs & EP though (see below).  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 03:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Plenty of significant independent coverage of the band exists. And no, they didn't just appear on the cover of ArtRocker: [21].--Michig (talk) 10:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

...and they have just been on an extensive British tour ([22]) - I just Googled "xx teens" tour dates - it was easy to find.--Michig (talk) 12:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - the band is notable. No opinion on their albums or songs though... --T-rex 14:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Keep looks as though they are notable enough. Smuckers ^{It has to be good} 14:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - Being on the cover of a music magazine generally implies that the artist is the subject of the main feature within that magazine. Brilliantine (talk) 14:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, look for sourcing relating to 'xerox teens', as name was changed. Brilliantine (talk) 17:02, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• Keep per Esradekan. There are plenty of sources to be found on Google News, and at least one valid assertation of notability that I see. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 17:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - they were live in session on BBC Radio 1 last Monday. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carnoustie2008 (talk • contribs) 20:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
• Note There is a related AFD discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/How_To_Reduce_The_Chances_Of_Being_A_Terror_Victim. Dalamori (talk) 18:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Ned Scott 06:26, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. — Scientizzle 15:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Scooby Doo 3: Unleashed

Scooby Doo 3: Unleashed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Movie has not been announced for production. No hits on an engine search. This is most likely a good faith hoax. Could be speedied or snowed. S_RX 02:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:V, WP:RS and possibly WP:HOAX. Complete text is "This is the thrid movie in the series.In order the movies are "Scooby Doo", "Scooby Doo 2:Monsters Unleashed", and finally "Scooby Doo 3: Unleashed"." Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 07:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:V Artene50 (talk) 09:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 11:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Not a hoax apparently ([23]), but at best we're talking about a day old rumour. Fails WP:NFF. PC78 (talk) 11:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - Fails WP:V and WP:CRYSTAL; unconfirmed title of an unreleased movie. Ғїяеѕкатея^talk 12:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:V--  Darth Mike  _{(Talk • Contribs)} 14:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - per WP:CRYSTAL --T-rex 14:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete If/when a project is actually begun a much richer article can come back. As it stands, it fails under Wikipedia:V, Wikipedia:RS, Wikipedia:NFF 76.174.60.251 (talk) 18:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC) Michael Q. Schmidt (talk) 18:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• But I really want to see the Thrid film in this series should have been a CSD G1. Delete it now, or redirect to Scooby Doo. Darrenhusted (talk) 13:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL since there is no verifiable coverage about this project. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. Another AfD is now in progress for a duplicate article. The other article involves far less crystal ballery - it appears that the film is more than just mere rumour, as I initially suspected above. Suggest redirect or delete & redirect to the other article, though that may well end up getting deleted itself. PC78 (talk) 23:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect to Scooby Doo: The Beginning per above. PhilKnight (talk) 06:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Scooby Doo 3 and the above-mentioned film are separate projects. This references a sequel, the other is a television prequel with different talent and is not part of the theatre-release series. A redirect is inappropriate here. Incidentally, this could have been speedied as a recreation of a previously-deleted article. All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 15:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Punkmorten (talk) 08:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

MGC Baseball Pitch

MGC Baseball Pitch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable type of whiffleball pitch, invented by a non-notable high school pitcher. Everyone that has played whiffleball has invented a pitch. None are suitable for Wikipedia. — X96lee15 (talk) 02:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Delete- Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Reyk _YO! 02:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per Reyk. Blackngold29 04:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. — X96lee15 (talk) 19:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - as a hoax, though the article was good for a laugh. BRMo (talk) 22:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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). Refs that establish notability have been added. Ruslik (talk) 11:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Memorial Drive Elementary School

Memorial Drive Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is an article about an elementary school whose only claim to notability is that 12 years ago it was listed as a (US) National Blue Ribobon school (according to [24], 4% of all US schools are listed as such). No other information about the school can be found in reliable, independent sources. The bulk of the information listed in this article is already in the parent article on Spring Branch Independent School District. Karanacs (talk) 02:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as nominator. Karanacs (talk) 02:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect to Spring Independent School District Spring Branch Independent School District since info is indeed already there per WP:SCHOOLS and precedent. Some will claim notability from its past Blue Ribbon award. Regardless, it isn't getting deleted and didn't need to be brought to AfD. TravellingCari 04:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Whoops my error. TravellingCari 04:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Correction: It is Spring Branch Independent School District- Spring ISD is a different district WhisperToMe (talk) 04:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- TravellingCari 04:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- TravellingCari 04:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 10:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Merge to district. I'm surprised this one lasted from May until now. Deletionists start drooling when they see a title that has phrases like "in popular culture", "list of" or "elementary school". Mandsford (talk) 13:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - as a Blue Ribbon school. Though it is fashionable to decry awards nonetheless it is the highest award given to a US school and being in the top 4% is notable. It also meets the draft guideline WP:SCL. TerriersFan (talk) 15:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  • The WP:SCL proposal is marked failed. Karanacs (talk) 15:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
    • By just two editors and with discussion still ongoing on the latest draft. The fact remains that inclusion of Blue Ribbon schools survived all drafts and had consistent support. TerriersFan (talk) 15:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
      • It was failed when I first looked at it, and a read of the talk page shows that several editors called for it to be failed until you reopened it. The talk page also shows several users expressing discomfort with having Blue Ribbon schools be highlighted as potentially notable. Karanacs (talk) 15:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect to district: Being in the top 4,000 elementary schools doesn't strike me as particularly important, failing discovery of "other information" in "reliable, independent sources". CRGreathouse (t | c) 17:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Keep We have kept on the basis of blue ribbon status quite consistently in the past. Though we're not actually bound by precedent, Failure to have consistency is confusing to both readers and potential editors. Incidentally, i argued against such status being notability for a while, but was eventually convinced its sufficiently distinctive and discriminating as an award. DGG (talk) 15:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, notability has been established, ergo no need to merge. Wizardman 22:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
  • The only independent sources that can be found about this topic verify that it is a school and that it won an award. No other detail is available. All of that information is already in the parent article on the school district. I checked the archives of the local newspaper, the Houston Chronicle, and they never reported on the Blue Ribbon award. the school gets only passing mention in their archives. There is no "significant coverage", as WP:N requires, of the subject. Even its proponents haven't found any. Karanacs (talk) 02:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes they did report the award. TerriersFan (talk) 02:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
• Keep While establishing notability for most elementary schools can be a challenge, recognition by the Blue Ribbon Schools Program is a strong claim of notability, and is backed up with reliable sources. Alansohn (talk) 02:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. If those working on the content need the article history restire to user space, let me know... — Scientizzle 15:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Patricide (2007 film)

Patricide (2007 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article does not assert notability, and the film does not appear to have received any significant coverage in reliable sources [25]. PC78 (talk) 02:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I'm forced to agree, though I would love to be proved wrong, it sounds like an interesting film. Delete per nom. --John (talk) 02:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 02:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: I took a look to see if the article can be sourced and improved, as it seems well written. I suppose finding notability is the first order of business. I do note that they have an Wiki-link to the wrong Charles Delaney... as the actor listed on Wiki died in 1969, and even his page here says so. They should have referenced this man. Michael Q. Schmidt (talk) 03:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. The film is not listed in the Internet Movie Database yet, which suggests non-notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Keep temporarily I have created a sandbox for this article. Will work to improve it over the next couple days. Michael Q. Schmidt (talk) 06:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment Yikes. A tough job. On my sandbox I have already done some major cleanup to the article, and certainly I can find numerous cites and sources for the history itself, as that moment in the timeline of WWII is of great import... but I am still digging to find out more about the film and its release. I have not given up yet! Michael Q. Schmidt (talk) 22:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Addendum I have put out the request to the earliest contributors to this article as they may have links to the required sources inre: distribution, releases, reviews, etc. If I do not hear back... Michael Q. Schmidt (talk) 00:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Nom's search link is illuminating and shows that this film hasn't received coverage from reliable secondary sources. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 02:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - no notable coverage, and not enough inherent notability otherwise. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 15:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete without prejudice. Changed my vote... and here I was 3 for 3. This one was tougher than expected. I will continue to work on the article in my sandbox and would like to be able to return it if/when I am able to show notability. Michael Q. Schmidt (talk) 05:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

A new development... I just received an email from the director of the film who tells me he will ask the film's producers why the film was never submitted to IMDb and further to provide me with the online evidences I requested. If I can prove notabilty, I will be glad to bring the article back, as the subject matter does indeed sound interesting. Michael Q. Schmidt (talk) 16:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 22:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Chris Page

Chris Page (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I don't really see any major notability, and the subject has requested deletion on otrs:1770876. There are also citation issues I could not easily resolve on a quick search. Thanks, NonvocalScream (talk) 02:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as there is no evidence of notability at all. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Considering the lack of notability and the request, I think this should definitely be deleted. John Reaves 23:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Tho I dont normally comment on sports figures, I'd think that " all-American and national champion in the 4x400" twice is notability. What reason is given for his wanting deletion? DGG (talk) 15:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I can't logon the otrs interface from work cause I don't have the tunnel. But as soon as I get home, I'll see if I can't break out more information. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 17:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I won't be able to give any more information. Another otrs volunteer can verify the request, however. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 04:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, not enough for notability as he has not competed on the highest level of his sport athletics. At least one international event or an outstanding result should be a minimum. Punkmorten (talk) 08:55, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
  • An "outstanding result" such as being the U.S. National Champion in the 4x400? Ford MF (talk) 19:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
• Keep as fulfilling our guidelines for sports figures. Some references would be nice though. Ford MF (talk) 19:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Punkmorten (talk) 08:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

OdinMs

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

Contested speedy deletion; see restoration debate at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 July 20. Some very limited sources are listed there. This is a procedural and neutral nomination. Chick Bowen 02:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Delete- there are some hits on google that verify the existence of this company, and the law suit. Nevertheless I'm not sure any of this establishes notability. The article seems to contain a great deal of wailing about a perceived injustice and Wikipedia's not the place for that. Reyk _YO! 02:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Strong delete per nom. Distinctly non-notable, and fails WP:A. WP is not the place to solve legal disputes, or to shout about commercial injustices. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per above, makes multiple unsourced claims. Blackngold29 04:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as insufficiently notable. This "private server project" has not been the subject of non-trivial coverage by reliable sources. — Satori Son 14:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, can't find any coverage anywhere other than blogs and forums, Google News has nothing, notability has not been established. And, as all above have stated, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. --Stormie (talk) 23:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhilKnight (talk) 06:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

List of Towns Along I-95 by County and State

List of Towns Along I-95 by County and State (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information - WP:NOT. Prodded and tag removed. Rschen7754 (T C) 02:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 02:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per reasons I stated on my attempt to prod the article. just see WP:NOT it matches many of these criteria.  — master son^{T - C} 03:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. While lists have their place, I can't think of a way this list benefits the encyclopedia. When is an encyclopedia reader ever going to want a list of towns a highway passes through? I also can't see it helping the organization of editing; when is an editor going to want this? So it doesn't seem to fit under the rules, and also fails the "How does it help the project?" test. If the page's creator can comment on how they think this list might be of benefit to the project, please do so! —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 04:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Information is already provided by exit lists in the state-detail articles anyhow. (Probably would have been simpler just to redirect this to the I-95 article, but eh, as long as we're here... —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 08:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete I understand the premise, although it's misleading to say that these are towns that I-95 passes through. Yes, it's possible that Island Falls, Maine, population 793, has extended its city limits to the other side of the interstate, but in most cases, the highway passes by the town. It runs right through the middle of some places on the list, Portland, Providence, New Haven, etc. Since Scott5114 confirms that there are already exit lists for I-95, the author might consider adding place names to those. Mandsford (talk) 13:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete or redirect I have tried several times to redirect the article to the main Interstate 95 article but have always been reverted by the article creator. As Scott mentioned above, I-95 has a complete exit list (split into articles by state) which is easily accessed from the main article. These exit lists do a much better job of listing the actual localities the highway passes through. --Polaron | Talk 14:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - This list is useless and is not used. What is the point since there is a list of major cities in the route description of Interstate 95. --CG was here. (T - C - S - E) 20:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per all of the above, and apologies for the pile-on vote. :-P -- Kéiryn (talk) 16:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete and Snow close. Per above. --Son (talk) 04:49, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
• Merge with Interstate 95. Wikipedia is not paper, as we all know, but this information is not likely to be of interest alone. As a rhetorical adjunct, why do we have individual articles for all US interstate highways? I would posit that this information is highly relevant to that topic. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 07:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
  • The information is already covered in the articles. This is redundant. --Son (talk) 05:54, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus has not changed since previous AfD; lack of willingness to actually improve article does not in this case mean it should be deleted. Article does need pruning, sourcing, and better direction, however. lifebaka++ 14:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

List of fictional television shows

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/List of fictional television shows
• Articles for deletion/List of fictional television shows (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/List of fictional television shows (3rd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/List of fictional television shows (4th nomination)
• Articles for deletion/List of fictional television shows (5th nomination)

List of fictional television shows (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

AfD result from last year was "keep" based solely on "it's useful" and "keep if improved" votes. Well, it hasn't been improved any; it's still unsourced and there are no definite criteria, as evidenced by how LONG the list is. So one episode of Animaniacs used a Jeopardy! spoof. Does that mean we need a list for every fictional TV shows? Are parodies like Numberwang from That Mitchell and Webb Look really "fictional TV shows" or just skits? What about all the fictional titles in Family Guy? Et cetera. I see no usefulness in this list, nor any way to reliably source it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 01:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 01:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - we have categories for a reason. Wikipedia is not a collection of lists. -- Tawker (talk) 01:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Delete This is a good example of what categories are for. We don't need lists of this sort, especially without reliable sources. PeterSymonds (talk) 01:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Strongest Delete Possible- Unscourced, indiscriminate, non-encyclopedic listcruft. Last year's AFD got it badly wrong. Reyk _YO! 01:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Check the talk page, there's an IP who agrees with you there. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 01:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Delete There is no conceivable way this list could be anything except indiscriminate and lacking. The scope is just too broad. RayAYang (talk) 01:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Strong delete The previous close was faulty and completely out of order. My guess is that it would have been overturned at DRV. I'd say that, depending on the channel, up to 95% of the fare is fictional, so this list is really quite pointless. And a show-in-show? Wow! It would impart no great encyclopaedic value. I would strongly urge for its deletion, lest we be plagued with articles such as List of television documentaries, List of reality TV shows, List of news programs, etc, instead of relying on categorisation. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:WHOCARES (in the whole 'this is too much useless information' sense rather than the 'I don't care' reasoning). Keep the fake show titles within individual article prose. TV is parodied on TV. It's a fact. But it doesn't mean we have to list every fake TV show ever. Nate • (chatter) 02:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Blackngold29 04:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Certain shows, like the Simpsons have media pages within, but for others this is necessary. Merge the sub-categories into their pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.46.46.131 (talk) 05:50, 29 July 2008
• 'Strong Delete This is a mostly unreferenced unencyclopedic content. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Ultimately, this is a list of jokes, isn't it? It's no different than a list of insults or a list of fictional towns that might be found in the dialogue of a TV show. Yes, it's an interesting list, and I'm saving it to my own computer to enjoy later; and I appreciate the effort that went into compiling it. However, none of those are reasons to keep, other than the obvious one under WP:MANDSFORD which is that if Mandsford likes it, then words like irregardless apply. Mandsford (talk) 12:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Delete Unreferenced, unencyclopedic, and it will be an infinitely growing monster that will no doubt never be complete. Your Radio Enemy (talk) 15:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per above. This article is annoying to look at. Tavix (talk) 16:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete I've made efforts to attempt to upkeep the various "List of fictional..." articles, and it's brutal. Editors constantly add trivial entries mentioned in one episode of some random show. Any enforceable inclusion criteria (per WP:SAL) make these lists extremely short and uninformative. I'm in favor of deleting all of these fictional institution articles as I can't see how they truely benefit an encyclopedia. -Verdatum (talk) 17:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Keep I see no reason why this cannot be sourced. --neon white talk 00:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. No encyclopedic value at all. Eklipse (talk) 12:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
• Keep The longer the list, the more useful and normally the better. I'd interpret this as meaning notable shows with an article on Wikipedia. If we think they;'re not important enough for a place even on a list then why are we writing articles? The advantage over a category--once again--is that here can be a description for orientation purposes. Wikipedia is difficult to navigate without removing articles like this. Browsing is one good way of using an encyclopedia, and the information given is helpful for this. I would add a column giving the dates. DGG (talk) 15:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Reply Just to confirm, you do understand that this is a list of shows that only exist in various fictional universes right? The fictional shows don't even have a category, because they are not worthy of independent articles. It's not a list of real shows within the realm of fiction. Something like that would be perfectly fine as a list (and category). If, for example, this list contained all the fictional shows within Saturday Night Live (sometimes as many as two or three new ones an episode), not to mention all the other sketch comedy shows, this list would be hundreds of K of worthless information. There is no reasonable criteria for inclusion for this list. -Verdatum (talk) 16:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I found the category, it's Category:Fictional television programming, and it has a mere 18 entries, and even some of those are of questionable notability; a far cry from the hundreds in this article. -Verdatum (talk) 16:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Another randomly assembled, unreferenced list. If it does remain online, at least rename it to designate this is all about U.S. television series. Ecoleetage (talk) 20:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Exactly the sort of list topic I would hope Wikipedia to include. Discrete, encyclopaedic, clear threshold for inclusion (fictional t.v. shows in notable works), verifiable, and of interest to our readers. Skomorokh 13:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Every item can, and probably should, be sourced to the original episode it aired in per WP:CITE. It may be useful to expand the lede to show how these story devices were used and also add dates to the headings and place everything in chronological order. Banjeboi 22:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Besides the fact that every single item in this list is verifiable and can be sourced to its primary source, the fictional work in which it appears, I am going to invoke ignore all rules for the reason that deleting this article would not improve the encyclopedia, and a dozen or two editors who find this information "useless" or "indiscriminate", or whatever other policy-imitating buzzword that basically translates to WP:IDONTLIKEIT, should not override the consensus of the hundreds of editors who worked on and maintained this article over the last two and a half years. Before someone invokes WP:EFFORT, this is not intended to be an "effort" argument; if just a few people worked for thousands of hours creating this list, that would be an "effort" argument. This is a WP:CONSENSUS argument, and a five-day AfD is a rather poor measure of consensus against what hundreds of good-faith editors have been doing for two and a half years. DHowell (talk) 23:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Reply- Editors' contributions to an article cannot be accepted as de facto keep votes, and certainly don't demonstrate consensus to keep. An edit to an article does not in any way prove that the editor knows the policies pertaining to what Wikipedia should include, it doesn't prove that the editor gave any thought to those policies before making the edit; at best it can be taken as an indication that the editor likes it. I'll also add that the bulk of the keep arguments in this discussion amount to little more than WP:ILIKEIT as well. Reyk _YO! 00:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Ignore all rules is policy, so whether "the editor knows the policies pertaining to what Wikipedia should include" is irrelevant; policies were created through consensus, they can be changed by consensus, and they can be ignored by consensus. DHowell (talk) 01:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Ignore all rules is policy, so we can safely ignore any suggestion that it be followed unless the argument supporting that suggestion is very good (and not "C'mon, guys, keep it because some people like it.")
        Reconsider your line of argumentation if it is so weak that it cannot even move those who agree with your goals. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
        • Actually, perhaps I didn't need to invoke "ignore all rules" after all, because this inherently verifiable article doesn't violate any; or at least to the extent that it may have problems, they can be addressed through editing rather than deletion. DHowell (talk) 01:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Consensus is formed by strength of argument, not merely by strength of numbers. Merely editing an article presents no argument or reasoning in favour of a Keep decision, any more than a whole bunch of people turning up and going "I like it, I like it, I like it..." Reyk _YO! 01:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
        • "Consensus is formed by strength of argument" is a nice bit of Wiki-speak, but in the real world "consensus" is not defined that way - consensus is general agreement, or at least agreement not to block or challenge a decision. Strong arguments can of course lead to consensus, and may provide evidence of consensus, but they aren't consensus in and of themselves, as the "strength" of an argument can be highly subjective and dependent on the biases of the participants. Even our own article on consensus fails to mention anything about "strength of argument". Realistically, if fifty editors (not sockpuppets) in an AfD said something equivalent to "Keep, I like it" and one said "Delete, unencylclopedic listcruft that violates WP:NOT#IINFO", do you really think the article would be deleted, or if it was it wouldn't immediately be brought to DRV? Here is an interesting paper which suggests that attempting to prematurely measure consensus by either numerical strength or by strength of argument is divisive and actually hinders consensus-building. DHowell (talk) 01:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
  • As a comment, I edited this article (and other articles subsequently deleted) and I would be very upset to hear that a deletion discussion presumed my editing an article meant I wanted to keep that article. Protonk (talk) 04:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
    • And yet my failure to participate in a five-day AfD for an article which I may have edited or find useful presumes that I accept the outcome of that AfD. Presumptions such as this are inherent in using a time-limited poll to determine consensus. DHowell (talk) 01:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Yes, it does. And there is a lot more basis for making that assumption than for assuming that my editing of an article means I want it kept even if it doesn't meet policies and guidelines. If you don't take the time to comment on something, we can presume that you don't really have a stake in the outcome. that's how the consensus process works. As for the time limits argument, I've heard it before. 5 days is more than enough time for any article that meets the guidelines in even the most marginal fashion to be brought up to standards. If, in the course of 5 days, the editors who read AfD can't fix the problems in an article (not to mention the people who have the article waitlisted), then it probably won't get fixed. Even if those 5 days elapse without a possibly worthy article being fixed and it gets deleted, there is no prejudice toward recreation (presuming the new article is substantively different). time limiting discussions is a fundamental tradeoff for including large numbers of people and dealing with a large workflow. AfD sees over 100 nominations per day. Raise the time limit and the backlog associated with the nominations will swell to unmanagable size quickly. It sucks that we have to make any tradeoffs but some have to be made. This is one of them. Protonk (talk) 07:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
        • Perhaps I "didn't take the time to comment" because I was busy with other things during the 5-day window, or I simply don't have the time to participate in every AfD in which I may have a stake in the outcome. But once that 5-day window passed, the bar is raised much higher to restore or recreate a deleted article than if I had managed to catch the discussion when it happened. And five days is not "more than enough time", for example, if sources are difficult to obtain, but common sense suggests that the sources are out there; or if one can easily find hundreds of "trivial mentions" of a subject but hidden within them is a couple of reliable articles with substantial coverage, and finding the diamonds in the rough may take significant time. One thing I've happily noticed recently is that more admins seems to be willing to relist a discussion if consensus doesn't appear to have been reached; this is one helpful improvement to the process. And we could probably reduce the total number of AfD nominations if we had some way of enforcing WP:BEFORE, and encouraging WP:PROD and WP:CSD where appropriate. DHowell (talk) 01:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
• Strong keep per Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, unoriginal research, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world), What Wikipedia is, and Wikipedia:Lists (discriminate, encyclopedic, maintainable, notable, unoriginal, and verifiable). --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
• Keep this terrible article. This needs a total revamp of scope and form, but an article describing the use of metafiction in television is useful to an encyclopedia, and should be reasonably sourceable. Right now, the scope is overly broad and badly defined, and the article is chock to the gills with crufty one-off jokes and skits, but after burning out the underbrush this will have real potential. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
• Very weak keep I basically agree with AMiB here. I also suspect that secondary sourcing exists for at least some of these 'sub-lists'. there is probably some guidebook or article that covers simpsons fictional television shows (thought probably not exhaustively), same goes for family guy (probably). This would probably not work well as a category as it would be continually underpopulated. Protonk (talk) 04:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
• Keep but wikify further. At first glance, a category would serve this purpose, but not all items which might be included in this list are notable. I am concerned that this list is too broad (see WP:LIST), but its categories could become separate lists. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 07:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Delete My god this article is a mess! What are the standards for inclusion? Where are the references? How is this notable? This is an excellent example of why Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The range of the topic is just too broad. Even if all the shows were verified they have no notable relationship with each other worthy of mention. Themfromspace (talk) 13:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
• Delete too poorly defined subject. Mukadderat (talk) 16:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: Previous AfD had a clear and overwhelming consensus to keep. While I understand that consensus can change, we should really only have second nominations when an AfD closed as "no consensus", because once we have an unambiguos keep, then we should focus on improving the article in question. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment- If you read the keep arguments from last time, you'll see that all but one of them boil down to WP:ILIKEIT or WP:USEFUL. I think previous consensus can, and should, be challenged in such cases. Reyk _YO! 20:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
    • I don't actually consider those weak arguments as editors and donors come here, because they find articles interesting and useful and afterall a reference guide should be useful. With that said, fortunately, this time around policy based reasons have been added as concrerns why we should cover an article such as this one. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Do does this mean you're done linking to WP:ATA? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
        • I don't believe I've ever used the WP:ILIKEIT shortcut. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 08:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
          • Or read the essay at all, near as I can tell. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
            • Just like various "policy" pages, every time I read the essay it seems to change, especially recently... --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 08:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• Keep as I am sure there are third party commentaries in film/TV magazines or books somewhere. notable subject, think 'Larry Sanders', Tim's Tool Time, Krusty the Clown's show. etc. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - We probably can't source them all, but we can find sources for enough of them to pass NOTE. Anyways, we have this list because they aren't all notable. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 07:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 will post the content on the Borung Highway article talk page for any possible merge. Tan ǀ 39 01:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Borung Highway collision

Borung Highway collision (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Newsworthy, yes. Encyclopedically notable, doesn't appear so. It was PRODded/dePRODed approximately a year ago with the note, "deprod; this article is well-written and sourced, nominate it for AfD as I'm sure it is a controversial deletion" so here we are. It made the news when it happened with the usual post-accident promises of fixing the intersection, etc. but no evidence it had any lasting impact on laws. Sole claim to notability "This was the state of Victoria's worst road accident, in terms of casualties, in over a decade, resulting in all seven people in both vehicles being killed. After the collision, one vehicle caught fire and burned." seems weak. So lets get it out of the way, there was news coverage and its referenced --- I don't think that establishes notability. Thoughts? TravellingCari 01:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —TravellingCari 01:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —TravellingCari 01:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Wikipedia is not news. RayAYang (talk) 01:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete- I can't really add to what TravellingCari's said, except that I agree. If a delete consensus is eastablished for this one, I'll nominate Gerogery level crossing accident as well. Reyk _YO! 01:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. The accident is tragic, but Wikipedia is not a news agency. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 02:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. The most serious accident in Victoria for a decade is a crying shame, as are all accidents, but otherwise no major consequences forseen. delete lest we become a catalog of road accidents. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Merge to Borung Highway since it points out a problem with the arrangement there. Though there were 7 people killed, it's because there were five in one of the two cars involved. Sadly, fatal collisions between two vehicles happen every day, all around the clock. Mandsford (talk) 12:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Merge per Mandsford - there is some notable information here, and the worst accident in Victoria in a decade is pretty bad, but it just doesn't merit an article to itself. Instead, it should go to the highway's article where it is relevent; after all, the main notability is the implications for the road itself. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Merge per above. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
• Merge, great info, probably doesn't need its own article though. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 00:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
• Merge as above. If someone can find a government document in which this collision is referred to as "the Borung Highway collision" or similar, that may establish notability. Otherwise, I think this is just another bad traffic accident. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 07:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment There don't appear to be any such documents because it really was a run of the mill traffic accident. It gets the flurry of quick news but has no long term notability. Would have been different if this accident had been cited as a reason to fix the area, but there's no evidence it has. TravellingCari 15:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oh for fuck's sake nothings wrong with it! I say leave the article and don't delete it. Benshi

I have visited Benshi's User talk page and left a message asking him to refrain from using language that may offend some people. I have alerted him to the WP policy of WP:Civility Dolphin51 (talk) 11:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

LOL, if you think that swearing is against civility, you're kidding yourself. And I don't swear for the lulz, btw. Benshi —Preceding undated comment was added at 06:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• Merge some of the content. This is extremely overdone for a car accident! I can name several equally-bad car accidents just in my own home town. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Punkmorten (talk) 08:42, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

How To Reduce The Chances Of Being A Terror Victim

How To Reduce The Chances Of Being A Terror Victim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Does not meet notability criteria for albums or songs (one prod contested, so figured it was best to bring all articles here at once). Somno (talk) 00:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

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

Darlin' (XX Teens Song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Xerox Teens EP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Chasing Your Tail/Pay The Man (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Onkawara/B-54 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Only You (XX Teens Song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The Way We Were (XX Teens Song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Round/Man It's Hard To Beat A Woman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —Somno (talk) 01:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Somno (talk) 01:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy. You might as well delete the artist XX Teens as well. SYSS Mouse (talk) 01:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete all. The band appear notable as they turn up plenty of reliable sources in a news search. These singles and the EP are not notable, however, as a single usually has to chart to be notable. I see no reliable sources for any of the releases other than their debut album. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 01:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete whilst their notability is asserted as well as possible given the young band, there is nothing in this group of articles which may indicate at how this band, or any of the "singles", meet the criteria set out in WP:MUSIC or WP:SONG. It is signed to a major independent record label, fine. But they appear not to have been in a nation-wide tour, nor is their any proof offered that their singles have been placed on rotation by a national radio station? WP is not Myspace. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete the songs & EP, failing notability per WP:MUSIC. Keep the band though for passing WP:MUSIC#C1, [26], [27], [28]. Their song "Darlin'" was included in NME’s tracks of 2007 as well. I've added the ref to the band and album page.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 03:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete all - Singles don't meet WP:MUSIC notability, band has no third party references. Blackngold29 04:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Note there is a related AFD discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/XX Teens. Dalamori (talk) 18:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete songs but not the band. Brilliantine (talk) 19:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete; this doesn't seem like a significant song or set thereof, and clearly do not meet our criteria. This kind of content would be better placed in a list in the band's article. I'm not sure the band itself merits deletion. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 07:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Punkmorten (talk) 08:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Skender Ademi

Skender Ademi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article is about an actor who does not seem to have been "the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject"; does not seem to have "had significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions"; nor a " large fan base or a significant "cult" following", nor has he seemed to have "made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment." As a result, I do not believe the article statisfies WP:BIO. The actor seems to be, from what I can tell, a very minor one. I could be wrong, and any input to this discussion would be appreciated. Thank you for reading. EasyPeasy21 (talk) 00:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Weak delete per ghits: [29]. JJL (talk) 00:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Just have to go with what I see. --Quartermaster (talk) 01:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Delete fails WP:BIO. only 75 unique Ghits, most of which are not for this actor, but for individuals either related to Slobodan Milosovic or are other namesakes. The link cited by JJL above is but a directory entry. All signs are that he has played some small, non-recurring roles in his native serbia, and nothing of consequence in the USA. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete no notability or sources given. Blackngold29 04:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Nothing to indicate notability. Very few mentions on the web. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 18:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. He does not appear to have done anything notable; everything on the page is trivia. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 07:30, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No sourced statements to merge into other articles.. Tan ǀ 39 00:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Music visualization techniques

Music visualization techniques (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Nice example of original research. Not referenced, contains information that is best in own articles (which already exist). Written in a very un-encyclopaedic manner (almost essay-like) with a "summary" section at the end. Most worthy content already exists in one form or another, and should be easily referenced and merged if not. Booglamay (talk) - 21:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I hope that I am responding correctly (by editing this page). If not, please let me know the correct procedure (click on Talk?). I am new at this.

First of all, and this may short-circuit the discussion... would it be appropriate to instead add one VERY SHORT sentence and link to the "Music visualization" page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_visualization). The link would be to the same article on my subpage? If so, I will do that. In fact, this would be a very natural and effective way for interested people to find this information. If not...

Essay style... yes. But there are many long-existing wikipedia articles written that way. They may be flagged as such but they are not deleted. It took me about 10 seconds to find an example (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_visualization). Essay style is not necessarily a bad thing (even in an encyclopedia).

Is the information accurate, valuable, and pertinent? Yes. Is the article readable, clear, and easy to follow? Yes. Is it written in an "encyclopaedic" manner? I do not know. What constitutes "encyclopaedic?" It certainly is "Essay style."

Summary section... easily deleted and not important.

Finally, most of the information presented in this article does indeed exist in one form or another. However, it's virtually impossible to reference!!! Why? Because it exists in a myriad of software forums, programmer discussion groups, and web sites devoted to exchanging information of this type among software developers. And would wikipedia even consider a reference (link) to such things whose question/answer threads will likely disappear next year? wikipedia is, in my mind, an excellent and natural place to retain this type of information for others to find even though it may not be written in an encyclopaedic "style"... Keeping in mind that the information is accurate, valuable (to at least some), and easy to follow.

Again, however, a reference to this article on a user subpage would work almost as well.

Thanks for your time.

Joliviolinist —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joliviolinist (talk • contribs) 23:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment: The Flow visualization also highlights the use of first- ("If we adjust the gain"...) and second-person pronouns ("when you listen to a song..") that should not be used. This article is heavily biased towards "Gloplug", and reads more like a "how to" guide (see WP:NOTHOWTO) than an encyclopaedia article. Essay style is a bad thing if it's what's come straight out of your head. Booglamay (talk) - 23:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• Weak keep I think that the author could make some excellent contributions to articles such as Music visualization. The writing tips offered by the nominator are worth considering, such as avoiding the first person and second person" (translation: I, me, mine, you, your, we, us, our) ; think of "encyclopedic tone" is simply the format for making an article compatible with the Wikipedia system. To the author, I shall say, "Your knowledge of writing is better than my knowledge of engineering". It's a step in the right direction in trying to explain something that's quite technical. Mandsford (talk) 20:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe that the author's ability to contribute affects whether this article stays. Yes, I agree that this editor could potentially contribute a lot of useful information to Wikipedia, but this article does not belong in an encyclopaedia. As I said in my nomination, information that is not covered elsewhere (and qualifies for inclusion) should me merged in. Booglamay (talk) - 12:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Skomorokh 02:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• weak delete when you say "music visualization", I think, "Music notation". The article is actually about transforming audio information (music or otherwise) into entertaining patterns, not how to graphically represent music, as the lead section would claim. The article as it stands is strongly an essay form, bordering on a HOWTO guide. It appears to be pure WP:OR, though some of it is possibly sourceable. It's possible an article could exist to represent this information, but I strongly doubt a decent article on the subject would retain any of what currently exists there. -Verdatum (talk) 17:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• merge All of the sourceable statements in this article probably belong in music visualization. Jkasd 04:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete or weak merge into music visualization. This article is not encyclopaedic, and can most likely be condensed into two or three sentences of verifiable content which do not themselves warrant an article. It would be appropriate to re-create this page when a technique section of the aforementioned page is very large. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 07:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - possibly useful, but unreferenced essay. Mukadderat (talk) 16:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
• Merge into music visualization per Falcon Kirtaran. Obvious OR, no cites, POV fork. Bearian (talk) 17:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. There is nothing sourced in here so nothing that is appropriate to merge. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Punkmorten (talk) 08:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Thor Halland

Thor Halland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable figure who fails WP:BIO. There is a sliver of WP:V via a BBC press release about an appearance on university challenge but that's it. All of the other claims either appear to be a) untrue (film appearances); b) unverifiable from reliable sources or c) trivial mentions of that sort that we do not and cannot construct an article from and were removed - what you see is what we are left with. --Prisongangleader (talk) 13:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• delete - nonnotable. Laudak (talk) 14:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
• delete - nonnotable. NineBerry (talk) 10:49, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Please provide an argument, or your opinions may be discounted per WP:JNN. Sincerely, Skomorokh 03:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Skomorokh 03:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Note: the nominator has been indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet. Skomorokh 03:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete-Yeah, look, I'm not sure what more I can say than staggeringly non-notable. It might be true, it might be verifiable, but merely being a winning contestant on a game show doesn't come anywhere near what I'd consider notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Reyk _YO! 03:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per Reyk. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete also per Reyk, doesn't pass any notability standards I see. Blackngold29 05:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Appearing on University Challenge only makes you notable for having parents who own two Ferraris, a Porsche and a secret BDSM chamber. Black-Velvet 05:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, nn. --Soman (talk) 13:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete BLP1E, Notability guidelines for biographies. Also the cited source is a press release. For the closing admin, please take into account the consensus about the article before considering implementing the guidance for banned users. Protonk (talk) 03:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per others. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 03:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Simply appearing on a published list of people does not impart notability; even I am more notable than that. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 07:17, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

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