Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 August 28

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Zeppomedio (talk | contribs) at 01:45, 28 August 2008 (Adding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blub (programming). (TW)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< August 27 August 29 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was merge to Paul Graham. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 15:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blub (programming)

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

Not important or notable, sufficiently covered by Paul Graham page. Zeppomedio (talk) 01:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I'm no computer programmer, but shouldn't articles make some since to people that have lesser knowledge of the subject? I can't make heads or tails of this. Also non notable. RockManQ (talk) 01:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Smerge and redirect perhaps a sentence to Paul Graham. Just because a notable person proposes a hypothetical computer language to make a point doesn't make that language worthy of an article. Still, it may receive references in programming and CS texts so makes sense to have around for search and index/list purposes. --Dhartung | Talk 07:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect. Not sufficiently notable to have own article, and unlikely to ever progress past stub.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 13:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above. WikiScrubber (talk) 08:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Smerge to Paul Graham. Stifle (talk) 10:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 15:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Gilbert

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

Non-notable candidate for the Florida House of Representatives. As seen in this article, Ryan Gilbert lost the election by 14,000 votes. As for him being one of the "youngest people to run for the state legislature," I doubt that that confers notability. The rest of the news articles I found in doing this Google search were about a baseball player. Cunard (talk) 01:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (non-admin closure) Leonard(Bloom) 05:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Adventures of Brer Rabbit

The Adventures of Brer Rabbit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I can't find any reliable sources that show the movie's notability. Schuym1 (talk) 01:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep since it was nominated for a Annie Award and has some notable names to it (Danny Glover, Wayne Brady). I agree it does not meat the WP:NF guidelines but I tend to give more leeway to children's animation films since the tend to not get the press of an full length, blockbuster, theater released, adult oriented movie. Lets face it there are not a lot of critics that like to go out and bash little kids favorite Disney movie. GtstrickyTalk or C 01:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Universal is a major studio so probably good to give this one the benefit of the doubt. People checking out the actors' careers will probably be interested. Northwestgnome (talk) 02:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Schuym1 has something of a point... Only 2 reviews on MRQE (neither apparently major), Rotten Tomatoes apparently has nothing in reviews, IMdB lists nothing in reviews, and while it lists major talents as voices I doubt that this film is a major part of any of their careers. So there isn't any of the documentation I can find easily that would be in line with Notability guideline for films. Maybe this is a time for a common sense exception, but considering that the article has been around for 2 years, it seems like there's been plenty of time to find sources and improve (were it a priority for anyone.) Wouldn't really care if it were kept, though. LaughingVulcan 02:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If anyone had bothered Googling, ("The Adventures of Brer Rabbit" 2006) the first page contains a New York Times Review (which also appears other places) and an UPI blurb. Google News shows it's been mentioned in articles about D.L. Hughley, Wanda Sykes, and Wayne Brady. Google books lists two mentions that appear to reference this particular film. I also found an confirmation for the Annie. Jclemens (talk) 03:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you would be so good, then, as to edit the Article and include those voluminous citations in a way that supports WP:MOVIE. As when I called up your apparent NYT reference [1], I discovered a cover blurb lifted from the "All Movies Guide," not a NYT movie review. AMG, AFAIK, is not a reliable source which confers Notability. Indeed, it appears to me to be a very trivial reference, even if it is on the New York Times website. And I further wonder how many of the other voluminous references you found are of similar quality. Futher, "Nominations," aren't major awards per WP:MOVIE. Or maybe you'd like to detail some of the other references yourself in the article, lest someone think this is a perfect example of a Google test. LaughingVulcan 00:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that was the nominators responsibility per WP:ATD and WP:BEFORE. Often I do it despite it being someone else's responsibility, but in this case, I choose to allow someone else the privilege. The evidence will remain here, linked from the talk page, as long as the article is kept--which it appears to be WP:SNOWing towards. Jclemens (talk) 01:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have to do anything. I did search for sources. I don't need to post sources, that I didn't find, on an article that I don't care about. Schuym1 (talk) 01:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While no one "has to" do anything--this is still a volunteer project--the community's expectations of AfD nominators are listed at WP:BEFORE. I posted my specific google search string so that others can review my findings firsthand, but also so that everyone who comes across this AfD can see how to effectively construct a search string so that relevant web references will rise to the top whenever needed in the future. We're all learning as we go here. Jclemens (talk) 03:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 03:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per sources found by Jclemens. Good job! Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, of course. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 04:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Award nominations and major stars establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 04:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Alansohn and others. Major stars, major studio, reviews in major newspapers. Stub needs expanding, of course, to include this info. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Produced by a notable studio, with reviews in major publications. 23skidoo (talk) 14:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Major studio release, several major stars in the cast, and these days just being a direct-to-video isn't the official seal of crappiness that it used to be, especially for kids' films. A lot of movies released that way do comparibly well or better than many theatrical releases. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - in addition to the film there is a book and a play of the same title, all of which have been covered by reliable sources. PhilKnight (talk) 23:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Xymmax and Jclemens' work. Banjeboi 18:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Strong references. Axl (talk) 20:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. GlassCobra 15:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mad fun

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

Clearly not notable Mblumber (talk) 01:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • ...and already deleted once, albeit in, erm, less comprehensive form (it was about six words long). Unfortunately it's impossible to google such a generic title as "Mad fun", but suffice to say that of the 6800-odd hits for "Mad fun"+comic, none of the first 200 related to this particular comic. "Clearly not notable" sounds about right. Delete. Grutness...wha? 01:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This article has more problems than just being not notable. RockManQ (talk) 01:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • EXTERMINATE! - Completely not notable. If a Google search brings up nothing (and Google brings up everything, pretty much), there's not even a small argument for notability. --Alinnisawest(talk) 03:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snowball Delete - --Kleinzach 05:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete insufficient context to identify subject. JuJube (talk) 06:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. This article's survival is a blatant WP:SNOW issue. - Vianello (talk) 00:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, Mad Fun is not very popular, more like a CT based venture, if you looked it up on google, i doubt you would find anything besides 3rd-tier fan sites that are very rare. You can delete it I guess, but I thought it would be a nice addition to the ever growing wikipedia library. say if someone heard of the comic series in a forum or something they could look it up on wikipedia and know what was being talked about like I do with most concepts or topics that I am not familiar with. The best thing about wikipedia for me was the user-created pages and the ability to learn about anything. I thank you for reading this and sorry for rambling. But I hope you will reconsider

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mad_fun"

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  20:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Jackson controversies

Michael Jackson controversies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)


Delete as unnecessary and excessive: It basically acts as a disambigious page to list all of Mr. Jackson's controversies. Wikipedia has 4 articles dedicated to his issues. While Jackson has seen his fair share of controversy, a disambiguate page is a little OTT. Furthermore I have fixed up the Michael Jackson template so that it dedicates a section to the controversies, providing easy access to them. His controversies can easily be accessed from the template. I have the template on my watchlist so it won't be white washed. I have provided the template for transparency.

— Realist2 00:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems like possible a WP:FORK. If anywhere the info should be in the Michael Jackson article. If it was contained there a redirect would seem fine. Hmmm that sounds like a merge to me. GtstrickyTalk or C 01:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The 4 controversies are all dealt with neutrally in the Michael Jackson article, avoiding undue weight in the biography. These controversies are then expanded upon on their own pages. The question is, do we really need this disambigious page to help people find the articles on his controversies? The answer is no. — Realist2 02:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unnecessary; discussed and linked at Michael Jackson and present in the template. JJL (talk) 02:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hatnotes in Michael Jackson fulfill the same purpuse in a much less tabloid-y fashion. – sgeureka t•c 08:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Michael Jackson. 96T (talk) 09:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; no redirect. I agree it's redundant with the template and also likely violates WP:BLP. I feel the existence of a redirect would also violate BLP to a degree. 23skidoo (talk) 14:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree, unless we also redirect "F*cking musical genius" to Michael Jackson it seems to be biased at the very least. I can't thing of anyone, not even Gary Glitter, who has a whole load of controversy redirects. It's poor taste to say the least. — Realist2 14:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Redirected to List of Heroes episodes. Stifle (talk) 11:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Angels and Monsters

Angels and Monsters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The sole source of this article is a blog, which in turn uses a single Flickr image (supposedly form the show's creator, but unverifiable) as its source. Verifiable nor reliable whatsoever. — Edokter • Talk • 00:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Although it doesn't fit in with the rules, there's not really any point in deleting it now as the season will start soon so it will only be gone for a few weeks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.27.201.63 (talk) 22:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The point is we don't know that; the title is likely completely bogus. So the article should not be created until it can be verified as true. That is why we have the rules. — Edokter • Talk • 23:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 08:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arif Hussain

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

Imam of the mosque (nominated below). Notability not asserted, fails WP:BIO. roleplayer 00:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RMHED (talk) 02:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Mr.Z-man 02:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chesham Mosque

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

Contested PROD. Non-notable place of worship. According to this article (which is unreferenced and also of dubious notability) the mosque's name is "Central Jamia Mosque". A search on this exact name with Chesham returns 18 unique google hits. One notes that this place of worship does not meet the proposed policy on places of worship. roleplayer 00:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The bucksfreepress link is the closest I could find to a reliable source. Axl (talk) 20:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The Bucks Free Press article is non-trivial secondary coverage of this mosque. It seems to be an important part of the Muslim community in the region. --Oakshade (talk) 16:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Bucks Free Press is a non-trivial source and I suspect non-internet sources also exist.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 23:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: part of nomination comment struck out deliberately as the proposed policy is arbitrary and hasn't gone through official channels. -- roleplayer 16:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. GlassCobra 15:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Burning Down The House (2000)

Burning Down The House (2000) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Completely non-notable pilot episode of a production that never was. One en passant mention in an interview does not a reliable source make. Prod was removed by author without addressing concerns; this article appears to be one of many added by an overzealous fan.  ;-)

  • Delete lack of content and notability. Wouldn't be surprised if it was a hoax, but I won't assume anything. RedThunder 13:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Stifle (talk) 11:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Come on Home (Bethany Joy Galeotti album)

Come on Home (Bethany Joy Galeotti album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:MUSIC, no critical reviews/reception or other real world context. Completely lacking in reliable sources (no, myspace is not reliable), the article mostly serves as a coatrack for information about an otherwise non-notable tour. Appears to be part of a series of articles created by an overzealous fan.

  • Delete as nominator. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - A song from this particular album received air play on an episode One Tree Hill. I linked to the official One Tree Hill Music website. I however linked to her director's/producer's myspace account because this is where her video originated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HushSound (talk • contribs) 02:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Regardless of the fact that the song was once played on a television show, our notability guidelines requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." A myspace page and a TV show's website do not constitute significant coverage, and certainly aren't independent of the subject. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2008_August_28&oldid=234696061"