Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 December 20: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
Line 14: Line 14:
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yes/old version}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yes/old version}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Patchen}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Patchen}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Martinez}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adrian Adlam}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adrian Adlam}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Thomas (teacher)}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Thomas (teacher)}}

Revision as of 16:22, 20 December 2008

< December 19 December 21 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James Hunter (film director)

James Hunter (film director) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Assertion of notability appear to be limited to non-notable films and companies. No reliable sources to assert subject as notable film director. - Omarcheeseboro (talk) 15:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


No reliable sources? I have listed several external links that prove Mr. Hunter is a film director. Your opinion if what is or is not "notable" or popular enough is your opinion alone and does not reflect any rules or criteria made by Wikipedia. All comments and items listed in the article are 100% true historical fact. I am new to Wiki however, and would appreciate any assistance you might give to make the article more sustainable. jwh3 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwh3 (talk • contribs) 16:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply The one source is imdb, which is just a listing of all films made. See notability for films, reliable sources. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 17:04, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Actually I have given you three sources and there are more. IMDB, AMAZON.COM, CREATESPACE.COM, WITHOUTABOX.COM, YOUTUBE.COM, INDIEFLIX.COM

I have read the guidelines for film notability, and again that falls within the category of personal taste and opinion. Mr. Hunter's films were released, distributed, and of public interest. And the fact that he made those films at such a young age further argues my case for inclusion. Jwh3 (talk —Preceding undated comment was added at 17:14, 20 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Comment: The Amazon sources state This product is manufactured on demand using DVD-R recordable media.. CreateSpace is also a self-publishing portal. It would appear that anybody can self-publish through these venues. Chasingsol (talk) 17:25, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ReplyThis product is manufactured on demand using DVD-R recordable media.

So what? Does that mean James Hunter doesn't exist??

"CreateSpace is also a self-publishing portal. It would appear that anybody can self-publish through these venues."

Yes but not anybody has the resume or filmography of James Hunter. Again, these are opinions based on taste and preference, and your remarks are prejudicial in the least. Jwh3 (talk20 December 2008 (UTC)


Reply "not notable"

Define "notable" please. Jwh3 (talk20 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete: I would delete for the present because of lack of independent references and the strength of the moves and roles therein. However, this may change in the future. Good luck. Royalhistorian (talk) 05:40, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--No one is denying that Mr. Hunter is a film director, or that Amazon sells his stuff on demand. However, the WP community does deny that sites like YouTube.com offer independent verification of notability. Moreover, the COI issue is a bit too self-evident here; not that it takes away from possible notability, but it does raise questions about the believability of some of the statements. Then again, a thorough edit has removed much of the unverifiable and trivial content. What's left is not necessarily questionable, but it's also not notable. Hundreds if not thousands of people have 16mm equipment and have shot movies. Thousands if not tens of thousands have gone to LA to make it big and worked as waiters. I could go on. Subject, until proven otherwise (and I know one WP editor is on the case, perhaps he'll turn up something I (or the original author!) couldn't), is not notable; article should be deleted. Drmies (talk) 16:13, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless reliable sources can be found which establish the subject's notability and verify the facts in the article. No prejudice against recreation if such sources subsequently become available. Wiw8 (talk) 16:35, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ReplyArticle has been re-written and it is my opinion that the sources cited are notable. Article should NOT be deleted. This was the first article I have written for Wiki give me a break.
Reply"Hundreds if not thousands of people have 16mm equipment and have shot movies. Thousands if not tens of thousands have gone to LA to make it big and worked as waiters." You are being trivial and showing real ignorance. Hundreds and thousands have, but not at ages 14 and 17, and not producing those results, and certainly not in rural Alabama. Mr. Hunter was a local celebrity at that time. However, sufficient time has passed making this virtually impossible to prove. Also, I happen to know that Mr, Hunter didn't move to L.A. to "make it big" and end up as a waiter. In fact, he worked as a waiter for half a day and walked out. Mr. Hunter is at best a C-list celebrity, at worst he is a working actor. GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT IF YOU PLAN TO CRITICIZE OR INSULT.

Jwh3 (talk 22 December 2008

  • Delete but do not salt I've made a good faith effort to search for RS coverage of this James Hunter, but end up finding the musician, a colonial painter, high school athletes, a guy going to prison... When a guy doing time for writing bad checks comes up higher than you in a Google News search, you know you've got a PR problem. The author's questionable behavior is excusable per his newness to Wikipedia--frankly, the vehemence with which this article has been identified as not meriting inclusion may have been a little on the WP:BITEy side. Still, at the end of the day, there needs to be verifiability, and IMDb doesn't cut it. Jclemens (talk) 18:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In response to the other comments below, let's not pile on here. Yes, this should be deleted as it stands now. But the author has not expressed an intention to recreate this article (that I've seen), nor has this article been created multiple times previously. If it's recreated in substantially the same form, it's already going to be subject to a G4 speedy deletion. Salting the title is not merited by the interactions I've seen here--salting should be more about protecting the encyclopedia and/or targets of BLP violations from egregious issues, not for "sticking it to" new editors who try to contribute something that's not notable and react with misguided but understandable vehemence when "their" article goes bye-bye. Jclemens (talk) 18:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ReplyEverything you've just said is not very helpful at all. Except this: "the vehemence with which this article has been identified as not meriting inclusion may have been a little on the WP:BITEy side." Thanks for that. You wont find our James Hunter writing bad checks, and there is no official website for him. You're relying only on Google? What a joke. IMDB is much more trustworthy. Verifiability? Try making up a phony film and getting it listed on IMDB. It is my opinion that Omarcheeseboro started this out of a personal bias against Mr. Hunter. You're not gonna find much for our James Hunter on Google, since he was making films before the internet went online. Jwh3 (talk 22 December 2008
      • So the only helpful thing he said was the one thing in your defense? Quite the one-sided view on things. Anyway, no one said this James Hunter writes bad checks. Google is a fine search engine and a pretty good indicator to one's notability. IMDB is not considered an indicator for notability and since most of the info is user added, it's also not always reliable. Claiming Omarcheeseboro has a personal bias against James Hunter is a completely baseless accusation and serious assumption of bad faith. Lastly, your argument that this James Hunter lacks google hits because his films were made before the dawn of internet, is quite frankly laughable. I guess Ludwig van Beethoven, who wrote all his music before the internet, is just a fluke with over 4 million hits then.--Atlan (talk) 19:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No evidence this person has been the subject of substantial coverage by multiple, reliable, third-party published sources. — Satori Son 19:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply"Google is a fine search engine and a pretty good indicator to one's notability." Google is a joke. Example:Perfect 10 v. Google, Inc. So what if Mr. Hunter doesn't have a publicist. That doesn't make his work any less real. "Lastly, your argument that this James Hunter lacks google hits" Is that your only argument? Google hits? LOL

And this: assumption of bad faith encapsulates the entire crusade against the inclusion the the James Hunter article. Thank. Ok last time:

www.amazon.com/dp/B001HZY1SO/

www.indieflix.com/Films/RobinHoodPrinceofSherwood

www.amazon.com/dp/B001HZY1T8/

www.indieflix.com/Films/TheRiverBridge

Not fancy enough for you? Ok here we go with the film festivals. YAWN:

ROBIN HOOD:


George Lindsey UNA Film Festival Tracking ID: 1231 Entry date: November 08, 2006

Sidewalk Moving Picture Festival Tracking ID: 06-0003 Entry date: March 17, 2006

Hollywood Film Festival(r) Tracking ID: 4440 Entry date: March 13, 2006

RIVER BRIDGE:


George Lindsey UNA Film Festival Tracking ID: 1230 Entry date: November 08, 2006

Sidewalk Moving Picture Festival Tracking ID: 06-0004 Entry date: March 17, 2006

Westwood International Film Festival Tracking ID: 06-1014 Entry date: February 08, 2006

Hollywood Film Festival(r) Tracking ID: 4186 Entry date: January 01, 2006

Atlanta Film Festival Tracking ID: 3932 Entry date: January 01, 2006

Los Angeles Film Festival Tracking ID: 8796 Entry date: January 01, 2006

VERIFIED. Jwh3 (talk 22 December 2008 —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]

  • You fail to debunk any of the opposing arguments. Entering your films at a film festival does not make one notable. Furthermore, this is about notability, not whether James Hunter and his films exist. Your rather hostile defense of this article is not doing you any favors, by the way.--Atlan (talk) 19:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm amazed at the low level of intelligence with which most of you are exhibiting. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this article. It states absolute fact and is backed up by the most reputable movie database in the entire world. And those of you who are crying "vanity" are only envious. I have yet to see any real reason from any of you as to why this article should be deleted other than you just don't like it. I can name hundreds of articles like that but I dont need to delete them. Its very simple, if you dont like James Hunter dont look at his page. Move on. And to those of you who are asking Wiki to block recreation, you deserve a high position in either the Bush Administration or the Nazi party. This is ridiculous. Jwh3 (talk23 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.190.7.9 (talk)

*cmt Please don't call anyone stupid here again. As for you, you apparently continue to fail to read the relevant policies on sourcing, notability, etc... Here they are for your reading pleasure. WP:NOTE WP:COI WP:RS WP:RF. Happy editing, and cut the accusations.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination withdrawn --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:15, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes/old version

AfDs for this article:
Yes/old version (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Dicdef. Outcome of delete in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yes (word), but kept in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yes. Yes have been dab page for 2 months with no opposition. Taemyr (talk) 14:05, 20 December 2008 (UTC) Nom no longer feels that the article should be deleted.[reply]

  • I'm not quite clear why this still exists given that first AfD, and not sure why it wasn't shot down as a recreation in that second AfD, so I'm just going to vote on its merits: Delete as dictdef with no encyclopædic content. --fvw* 14:11, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. Why is the AFD named after a temporary page? - Mgm|(talk) 19:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to sentence words. Nominator change of hearts from this set of edits. Taemyr (talk) 21:09, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Confused, but keep at least one article, preferably both. Currently, the Yes and no article, a longish article, has a link to this AfD discussion; the page sentence words also exists and is short. I opposed changing Yes from an article to a disambiguation page because I wanted to add material about answers to negative questions in various languages; there are interesting things to say, not only about the words "yes" and "no" in various languages but also about replies such as "It is." or "Yes, it is." etc. and words such as "si" (French) and "doch" (German), so I would like an article (e.g. "Yes" or "Yes and no") where such information can go; if "yes and no" is only about the English words, perhaps another article is needed ("Replies to questions" or something, maybe). ☺Coppertwig(talk) 22:54, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You'll be less confused when you read the article and see that the French three-form system is already covered therein, as are languages that use echo responses (such as "It is.") rather than yes/no words. ☺

      Personally, I think that the correct article to be getting rid of at this point is no, so that no (disambiguation) can stand in its place, with the lead linking to yes and no, just like the lead in yes does. Uncle G (talk) 23:03, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Um, I'll be less confused when I read which one of the articles?
      Factual error in nomination statement: Taemyr said "Yes have been dab page for 2 months with no opposition". In fact, I expressed opposition and continue to oppose due to the above-mentioned material I wanted to add; and after it was converted to a dab page has been (arguably) converted back into an article [2] by another editor but this was reverted. (By the way, apparently the Oct. 3 conversion to dab page was done by cut-and-paste move, repaired on Dec. 20 by Anthony Appleyard.)
      Please clarify which article is being proposed for deletion. For example, I wouldn't want to see the relatively lengthy material currently in Yes and no deleted based on a discussion in which users really meant some other article. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 23:17, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, I was mistaken. I had assumed that you agreed that the possibility that Yes is ambiguous is better treated at wt:yes. Taemyr (talk) 23:55, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        The article I nominated for deletion was a pure dicdef of the word yes, and as such had focus on the usage of the word. IMO such an article would not be appropriate for wikipedia.
        The current article is far more so my deletion vote is withdrawn. Although I feel the article should focus on the consepts,ie. sentence words and the two(/three/four) form systems, and not on the words. That however is not a discussion for AfD.Taemyr (talk) 23:55, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 00:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Patchen

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

Seems to be little more than an advertisement for a non-notable artist. There are also numerous links on the page solely advertising Mr. Patchen's artwork. It also appears that the article is being maintained by Mr. Patchen in violation of WP:CONFLICT. A Google search for "David Patchen" shows only 3,420 results, many of which are unrelated to this particular individual. Hence, I believe that article does not meet the requirements for notability. Chasingsol (talk) 13:57, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment from nominator: I have spent the past couple of days second-guessing this AfD trying to find reliable third party sources per WP:V, WP:CREATIVE and the comments from editors below. I have still failed to do so. The only references provided do not appear to meet Wikipedia reliability standards, and the majority of those that have been provided, including those below, are offering the subjects artwork for sale. The article has been stagnant for almost a year, with no attempt to provide and cite reliable sources. --Chasingsol(talk) 14:33, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If Patchen himself has edited the article, there is only a COI if his edits are of a nature that conflict with the goals of Wikipedia (to produce a neutral sourced article). So I would leave that out of the argument entirely. I found a couple of articles that make a passing mention of him, but nothing extensive at all [3], [4]. I give this one a "delete" based on non-notability alone.  LinguistAtLarge  14:10, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the advice and direction. Striked out. Chasingsol (talk) 14:13, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  09:57, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to Jmundo: Those don't appear to be verifiable third-party sources. They are art galleries offering the work for sale (the shopping carts are dead giveaways!). I'm an admirer of his work, without question, I just haven't been able to find any third party sources to establish it's inclusion as a notable subject. Chasingsol(talk) 12:37, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the article requires a large amount of expansion to Wikify and its subject's notability needs clear explanation; if they cannot be achieved then delete. Reserve judgement and keep therefore. Jubilee♫clipman 13:18, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John254 01:58, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Adlam

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

482 Ghits, no references, no notability. hence fails WP:BIO Rgds - Trident13 (talk) 12:52, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Does not meet inclusion criteria. ChildofMidnight (talk) 14:09, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article asserts notability-- "CD recordings of works for violin by Carl Nielsen received a supersonic award and his recording of the Schubert octet was voted surround sound audio DVD of the year 2005 in Germany." and "He has appeared as leader with several European orchestras, including the London Symphony Orchestra, the Deutsche Kammerphilarmonie and the Scottish BBC Symphony Orchestra". If some of these statements can be reliably sourced, (and thus meeting WP:N or WP:BIO) I'd be happy with keeping this.  LinguistAtLarge  14:24, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I found a reference for the supersonic award, but it's given by what appears to be a small recod label, so the notability is weak. Can't find an English reference to the German award. Totnesmartin (talk) 15:02, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The award was not given by Tacet Records. It was given by Pizzicato, a print classical music magazine in Luxembourg [5] which is quoted on the Tacet Records web site.
Change to regular Keep in view of Voceditenore's improvements to the article. Nsk92 (talk) 15:31, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've expanded this and added more references, including one for the surround sound award. It was actually for the year 2004, but like the Grammys announced the following year. In my view he has enough to pass notability for classical musicians. Please note that with classical musicians, simple number of google hits in English are a pretty poor way to judge notability. He has also recorded with the London Symphony Orchestra and with Hyperion Records. For those of you unfamiliar with classical music, the post of 'leader' in an orchestra is the concertmaster. Voceditenore (talk) 09:04, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Bryanston School#Heads of Bryanston. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:19, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Thomas (teacher)

Sarah Thomas (teacher) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No reason for notability, apart from being the head teacher of a notable private school. Fails WP:BIO Rgds, - Trident13 (talk) 12:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dana Correz

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

Not notable. No refs. Exactly zero Google hits for "Dana Correz." Graymornings(talk) 12:44, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen D Duffy

Stephen D Duffy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A number of speedy and prods added to article and removed by article creator. Normally a speedy but given the number of removals have brought here for discussion. Whilst this is a procedural nomination my inclination is to delete. --VS talk 12:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. John254 01:39, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Tagged and defended under speedy CSD A7 - notability not indicated. This is a procedural nomination so as to seek wider input. I offer no indication as to keep or delete. --VS talk 12:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 21:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hashmi (Nekokara)

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

Verbatim copy or chunks-copy of Banu Hashim ←Signed:→Mr. E. Sánchez Get to know me! / Talk to me!←at≈:→ 12:33, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:41, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus.  Sandstein  10:03, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chaandni Raatain

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

Verbatim (or part/chunk) copy of Aaminah Haq ←Signed:→Mr. E. Sánchez Get to know me! / Talk to me!←at≈:→ 12:06, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, tagging articles for a deletion discussion doesn't seem to be unduly biased, as most of the articles tagged for deletion have not been victims of transliteration. Also, there are 2 citations on the page, both leading to the same review in a questionably notable online publication. This doesn't seem to be bias, so much as concern for notability guidelines. Please clarify your above statement. --OliverTwisted (Talk) 04:01, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • i think there may be some misunderstanding. Firstly, i'm not suggesting that the majority of (or any) people who nominated or are involved in this discussion are individually biased. However, please have a look at the links and the text i quoted above and read them again. Unless there is evidence to the contrary, we should expect that the set of people in this discussion are statistically biased with respect to this article. This is not just my opinion. This is documented at Wikipedia:User survey and Wikipedia:University of Würzburg survey, 2005 and discussed NPOV-style at Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. Let's put it another way. Chances are that User:Rk12m is the only person among us who is a South Asiann woman who watches lots of films. Certainly i don't qualify by any of those three demographic/sociological criteria (i'd like to watch a lot more films, but i don't). i have no idea what other articles have been tagged for deletion by the person who tagged this one for deletion, and that would be irrelevant anyway - i'm not claiming that that person (Mr E. Sanchez) is biased.
  • Secondly, even though i responded to the web hits argument, great care must be taken with web hit counts as a notability criterion, e.g. "a lack of search engine hits may only indicate that the topic is highly specialized or not generally sourceable via the internet. ... The search-engine test may, however, be useful as a negative test of popular culture topics which one would expect to see sourced via the Internet." This is a case of a popular culture topic, but is internet access in Pakistan and google ranking high enough on Pakistani websites to expect much more than a few hundred hits for this movie? Again, please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias if it's not clear why this is relevant.
  • Thirdly, as for the two citations to a (i presume) not-so-notable publication, i agree that this is a problem, but the same systemic bias applies to Pakistani cultural magazines. IMHO it would be reasonable to expect that probably 90% or so of movie reviews etc in rich Western countries are online without a subscription, and that maybe only 10% or so of movie reviews are online in Pakistan. i'm just speculating on the actual figures - but certainly the former must be bigger than the latter. If someone wants to search real estimates, please go ahead. As for what counts as a "reliable source" for movie reviews in general, that's something i can't judge very well.
  • Summary: there is a fundamental conflict between notability guidelines and the hope to counter systemic bias in the English Wikipedia. We cannot give up notability principles, but at the same time, we should try to counter the systemic bias, because it's a pity to have NPOV without any hope to get anywhere near neutrality on humanities subjects. There's no magic answer as to what to do, although Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias does have a section on generic suggestions. In this particular case, one obvious thing to do would be to ask for help at Wikipedia:WikiProject Pakistan before even thinking of deletion. In the meantime, put some tags such as {{Refimprove}} and also try explaining to User:Rk12m the dilemma we have. S/he is clearly a relatively new wikipedian. IMHO people from Wikipedia:WikiProject Pakistan and in particular User:Akhwandk from Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pakistani_Cinema would be people who in wikipedia jargon could be called "more expert" than "average wikipedians". However, looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pakistani_Cinema shows that there's only one user listed there so far, and that user's contributions happen a few times a week, but not every day, and for a few weeks s/he has not been editing. This gets back to the point about internet access. A deletion process probably has a timescale of about a week (AFAIR, but i'm not an expert) - this doesn't give enough time for someone like Akhwandk to hear the call for help and give an opinion or practical help in finding reliable sources. Boud (talk) 23:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course you are right about internet usage. Reliable printed sources are perfectly acceptable, but were not included. If the program appeared on national TV, there surely must be evidence of this somewhere? --OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 07:03, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and redirect to Amul STAR Voice of India. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:23, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abhas Joshi

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

When mr. Joshi accomplishes something more of note, he ca be considered for an article. Right now however, at most he deserves a note on a Amul STAR Voice of India page Usrnme h8er (talk) 11:08, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was redirect to Mitcham, Victoria#Schools. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:28, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio park primary school

Antonio park primary school (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article previously PRODed that can be safely named a stub or blank page with no substantial information on this "school". ←Signed:→Mr. E. Sánchez Get to know me! / Talk to me!←at≈:→ 10:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--This user has made little or no contributions outside this discussion. ←Signed:→Mr. E. Sánchez Get to know me! / Talk to me!←at≈:→ 11:45, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you consider all schools notable, they should still meet standard guidelines like not being promotional or being verifiable. - Mgm|(talk) 16:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per WP:CSD#G7. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Randolph (Tuckahoe)

Thomas Randolph (Tuckahoe) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Per WP:BIO, this is a pure genealogy entry. --fvw* 10:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) VX!~~~ 18:42, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rod Machado

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

Per WP:BIO, no secondary sources (google just gives a lot of press releases and such). --fvw* 10:31, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Javier Saade

The result was Delete. There were valid comments on both sides of the debate. I was quite taken by Jmundo's comments and considered long and hard. In the end it wasn't the majority of delete !votes that convinced, but the consistent argument from the deleters that Javier Saade wasn't shown to be notable, and that other than promotional material from GEM (copied onto various sites) there was nothing significant about him on the sources given, nor on a search I conducted myself. Notability was asserted in the article by implication that he was the guiding force behind a major financial institution, however this was not proved. Sources from GEM showed that he was one of a number of senior figures. It is also noteworthy that his company does not have an article on Wikipedia. SilkTork *YES! 01:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails notability criteria - I cannot find multiple non-trivial mentions in independent, reliable sources to support notability. In addition, the references provided in the article merely mention his name in passing or are not independent of the subject. Prod was contested by anon editor with no reason given. Somno (talk) 10:08, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Following reasoning by Somno. It's important to note that he is not "the" managing director -- nearly all the employees listed at GEM are "managing directors" of something (or better) [17]. As for being a "founder" of Air America Radio ... in several minutes' search I didn't find anything indicating he was more than an "Executive Vice President" -- in a hugely long list of "associated" people [http:/(blacklisted Wiki link)/focus/f-news/1467631/posts] -- in a company that's filed for Chapter 11 [18]. He's simply listed in the Radio Daze article as an "investor". There isn't evidence he's done anything notable, except to invest money and hold titles. Piano non troppo (talk) 15:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Happy Holidays 02:26, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The piece seems to meet the basic criteria need for entry. There are several good references and the person is notable due to his achievements. I feel certain that such information will be of interest to a certain block of people. Royalhistorian (talk) 06:33, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The question is what do the sources actually say about this subject? Is the coverage substantial? ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:51, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where are the "several good references", and are you able to add them to the article? The independent references currently in the article are not about Saade and simply mention his name once (the reference from the website of the company he works for is not independent and cannot be used to support notability). I see nothing special in his achievements that justifies an encyclopedia article, especially considering the lack of sources. Somno (talk) 04:12, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As Piano non troppo pointed out earlier, the company (which doesn't have an article on Wikipedia hence there's no merge or redirect target) has several directors and managing directors. Saade is just one of them. He's not the director, he's not a founder -- he's just someone in the hierarchy. The refs aren't adequate for establishing notability, because none are actually about him at all. Somno (talk) 09:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Uhm. An investment site. He's the second author on what looks like a white paper to encourage investment. (There's a charge or login to read it.) Marketing staff at any level may be assigned to write such. In Google, there is no reference to the article, except Wiki and the site itself. Piano non troppo (talk) 02:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Journal of Private Equity is a peer reviewed journal with an advisory board and the editor is a professor at the University of Chigaco.--Jmundo (talk) 06:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pei Hwa Presbyterian Primary

Pei Hwa Presbyterian Primary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Pei Hwa Presbyterian Primary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) — Added by King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:38, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article doesn't list any sources or establish notability. Orphaned and abandoned. Adam in MO Talk 09:31, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it a high school? Seems to be so I would say keep. ChildofMidnight (talk) 14:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, primary schools are not high schools. - Mgm|(talk) 15:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:34, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. fvw withdrew the nomination, see my talk page. Mgm|(talk) 15:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Road Island Diner

Per WP:CORP. --fvw* 09:29, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete this article because of my inexperience. Please make the desired changes to bring this into compliance since I do not understand how to do so. Thanks, Keith Walker —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwalker51 (talk • contribs) 09:37, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton Happy Holidays 03:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Westwood High School (Michigan)

Westwood High School (Michigan) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable school. Article was created 30 days ago and has been abandoned with out establishing notability. Adam in MO Talk 09:04, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NHS is just a essay, meaning it's just an opinion and is not a rule or guideline. If there are sources of notability, why not add them? There are 3 sources in the article and none of them are good enough (one is the schools website, one is the schools entry on its school district site, and one is a website containing info on almost every school in the country). You say it's notably, but fail to state why. AFD's are NOT votes. TJ Spyke 20:24, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did not justavote... I explained why I think the article should be kept. And are you suggesting that a) I don't know the essay that I wrote is an essay? or b) that I can not cite my essay as my reasoning for my opinion in this AFD? Would you rather I transclude it or write the whole thing here? Because I can, but I don't see a reason to do so, when any editor can click the link and read it. Did you read it?
The fact is that in 5 years of deletion debates on the English Wikipedia, there are *NO* high school articles that have been deleted for notability concerns which remain deleted today. Although not de jure, the inherent notability of high schools as a subject for Wikipedia articles is most certainly a de facto policy. High school after high school get nominated, and *ALL* get kept; many, if not most in WP:SNOW and/ or WP:HEY conditions.
And you should probably also read this:
--Jimbo (dated November 7, 2003 Partial solution to rampant deletionism, Wikimedia, November 7, 2003. Accessed September 25, 2007.)
Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 02:14, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't need to explain anything. Cite something different if you think that high schools aren't notable. Mandsford (talk) 02:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The essay is 100% correct, and rather than "opinion", reflects the consensus of hundreds of High School article AfDs. We do not delete high school articles on the basis of notability, because through an exhaustive series of attempts at doing so, over a very long period of time, EVERY high school inevitably is found to easily meet the primary retention criteria of WP:N through WP:V. There is NO DEADLINE to do this. High schools are a central institution within communities that generates news, and as such through a search of articles and archives can be shown to be notable. It is a matter of courtesy and convenience to preassume them to be notable to avoid deletion discussions that NEVER result in deletion. There is ample precedent to summarily dismiss deletion nominations for high schools. I invite you to peruse the innumerable deletion discussions that ultimately resulted in keeps... or find me even one that resulted in a deletion. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:07, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Try looking at the state of the article at the time it was nominated. Deor (talk) 16:29, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
AFD is not expedited article cleanup. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 17:03, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has been significantly expanded since being nominated for deletion. As of 17:01, 20 December 2008, [19], it asserted being a public high school in the N.I.C.E. Community Schools school district in Michigan. The article has been greatly improved since. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 06:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy redirect to Unreal Engine. Mgm|(talk) 15:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unreal technology

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

Unsourced neologism. All Google search results appear to be about Unreal Engine, not about this concept.  Sandstein  08:50, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. A pub crawl? No need to let this drag on for five days. Black Kite 18:32, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The 27th crawl

The 27th crawl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable event. No hits in Google News archive for "27th crawl". Was nominated for A7 speedy, but didn't meet the criteria, and given the hangon tag I guessed that a prod wouldn't work, so taking to AfD instead. David Eppstein (talk) 08:13, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to Gojulas Giga. MBisanz talk 02:32, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deadly Kong

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

This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of Zoids through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research, trivial model details, and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, and this is too trivial to require any separate coverage. TTN (talk) 23:50, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to some appropriate list. Obviously nobody would realistically think that Wikipedia should have a full article, but as far as merging goes, there's nothing in the nomination to indicate why some information isn't appropriate here. These all could have been very easily merged without this--If this is just a device to get enough attention to enforce a merge, it wasn't necessary. Too trivial for full coverage != delete--see WP:PRIOR DGG (talk) 06:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Mukadderat (talk) 01:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  08:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Gojulas Giga. MBisanz talk 02:32, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Death Saurer

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

This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of Zoids through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research, trivial model details, and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, and this is too trivial to require any separate coverage. TTN (talk) 23:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to some appropriate list. Obviously nobody would realistically think that Wikipedia should have a full article, but as far as merging goes, there's nothing in the nomination to indicate why some information isn't appropriate here. These all could have been very easily merged without this--If this is just a device to get enough attention to enforce a merge, it wasn't necessary. Too trivial for full coverage != delete--see WP:PRIORDGG (talk) 06:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Mukadderat (talk) 01:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  08:11, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Gojulas Giga. MBisanz talk 02:32, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bamburian

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

This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of Zoids through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources, which does not include the trivial fan site used as a reference. Most of the information is made up of original research, trivial model details, and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, and this is too trivial to require any separate coverage. TTN (talk) 23:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to some appropriate list. Obviously nobody would realistically think that Wikipedia should have a full article; but as far as merging goes, there's nothing in the nomination to indicate why some information isn't appropriate here. These all could have been very easily merged without this--If this is just a device to get enough attention to enforce a merge, it wasn't necessary. DGG (talk) 06:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT as more zoidcruft. Eusebeus (talk) 19:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close this and all other similar nomination as this robotic boilerplate nomination of 5 to 10 articles a day does not allow enough time and consideration for proper discussion to take place, and just encourages robotic boilerplate responses, and does not lead to any meaningful consensus. Where is the actual discussion occurring about how to properly manage all these fictional weapon/character/toy/whatever articles? DHowell (talk) 03:45, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  08:11, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Doe

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

non-notable businessman, doesn't meet notability guidelines. One mention in the Guardian however. Richard Hock (talk) 17:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  08:10, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:42, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting comment This relist was unintentional, I missed the first orange line when reviewing the log. However, it looks like the discussion could use a little more imput so I'll leave it be. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:52, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Crot has heard of Confetti plenty & even bought himself a bubblegun there, WP:IAR. Never of Doe though. Franciscrot (talk) 01:46, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is just conceivable that the company might be just barely notable, but i don't see how he is. DGG (talk) 03:20, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Initially I was excited when I started to read the piece. It started like a really good entry. Then, however, it went nowhere. The sources are poor and an major independent on the individual is non-existent. The company, after some searching is semi-noteworthy at best but the individual seems to be lacking in three major categories: 1. notability, 2. references and 3. general importance to a substantial group. Also, one would need to know his actual input into the company.Royalhistorian (talk) 06:49, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — no significant coverage established through the usual reliable sources. Notability not established. MuZemike (talk) 03:47, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/rename: what little sourcing is there is focused on the company, not the co-founder. If enough can be cobbled together then rename it 'Confetti (company)' (or similar), otherwise delete. HrafnTalkStalk 17:37, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:56, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My World, My Way (video game)

My World, My Way (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Adam in MO Talk 08:09, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to Gojulas Giga. MBisanz talk 02:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Salamander (Zoids)

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

This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of Zoids through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. The only independent source is fairly trivial when used with this topic, as the toy is just a random example used to criticize Zoids in general. It may be good to place within the main article, as the comments about the Zoid toyline are pretty relevant. Most of the information is made up of original research, trivial model details, and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, and this is too trivial to require any separate coverage. TTN (talk) 23:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to some appropriate list. Obviously nobody would realistically think that Wikipedia should have a full article, but as far as merging goes, there's nothing in the nomination to indicate why some information isn't appropriate here. These all could have been very easily merged without this--If this is just a device to get enough attention to enforce a merge, it wasn't necessary. Too trivial for full coverage != delete--see WP:PRIO
  • Delete as nn zoidscruft. Eusebeus (talk) 19:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Mukadderat (talk) 01:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  07:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to List of Zoids. MBisanz talk 01:55, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Malder

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

This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of Zoids through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research, trivial model details, and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, and this is too trivial to require any separate coverage. TTN (talk) 23:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to some appropriate list. Obviously nobody would realistically think that Wikipedia should have a full article, but as far as merging goes, there's nothing in the nomination to indicate why some information isn't appropriate here. These all could have been very easily merged without this--If this is just a device to get enough attention to enforce a merge, it wasn't necessary. Too trivial for full coverage != delete--see WP:PRIOR. DGG (talk) 06:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Mukadderat (talk) 01:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  07:57, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to List of Zoids. MBisanz talk 01:55, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hayate Liger

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

This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of Zoids through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research, trivial model details, and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, and this is too trivial to require any separate coverage. TTN (talk) 23:41, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to some appropriate list. Obviously nobody would realistically think that Wikipedia should have a full article, but as far as merging goes, there's nothing in the nomination to indicate why some information isn't appropriate here. These all could have been very easily merged without this--If this is just a device to get enough attention to enforce a merge, it wasn't necessary. Too trivial for full coverage != delete--see WP:PRIOR DGG (talk) 06:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Mukadderat (talk) 01:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  07:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to List of Zoids. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:23, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gustav (Zoids)

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

This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of Zoids through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research, trivial model details, and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, and this is too trivial to require any separate coverage. TTN (talk) 23:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  07:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was merge to List of Zoids. MBisanz talk 01:55, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gojulas Giga

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

This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of Zoids through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research, trivial model details, and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, and this is too trivial to require any separate coverage. TTN (talk) 23:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to some appropriate list. Obviously nobody would realistically think that Wikipedia should have a full article, but as far as merging goes, there's nothing in the nomination to indicate why some information isn't appropriate here. These all could have been very easily merged without this--If this is just a device to get enough attention to enforce a merge, it wasn't necessary. Too trivial for full coverage != delete--see WP:PRIORDGG (talk) 06:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Mukadderat (talk) 01:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  07:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to List of Zoids. MBisanz talk 01:55, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gojulas

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

This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of Zoids through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research, trivial model details, and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, and this is too trivial to require any separate coverage. TTN (talk) 23:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  07:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of 90-minute television series

List of 90-minute television series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

As per Appropriate topics for lists, lists should not be too broad. No country, decade or language category included in article title. The Appropriate topics for lists explanation (towards end of the section) points out that there must be a reason how such a list contributes to the state of human knowledge. Earlier nominated for PROD, but declined stating incompleteness of list is not reason for delete. Text including the word Incomplete in text was introduced by initial author only and not by any person proposing or seconding the PROD - it was not the reason for PROD. Also, the person agreeing on pro-d pointed out, there are many series that were 90-minutes in duration for a few episodes only and title does not say whether it is country specific. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 07:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Right. It does not specify that it is for a specific country or broadcast market. So, it needs to be expanded to include the rest of the world. How can you say it's to broad, and too narrow at the same time? Beeblebrox (talk) 08:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The title and hence the list is too broad. Hence the article is being nominated as it does not add any value. It is not appropriate for a list. There is no mention of narrow. There is no comment on existing entries from my part, though the person who seconded the PROD mentioned that the title is not mentioning US market (again in the sense the title leads to the list being too broad). VasuVR (talk, contribs) 09:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Clark

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

Contested prod. This footballer only played 20 minutes in his whole career, in a Scottish Challenge Cup match against a semi-professional club. I think he therefore fails WP:ATHLETE, as elaborated upon in the football notability guidelines. Although several sources are provided, most just mention his name as part of a list and do not go into any depth on his football activities. His conviction for arson does not make him notable either. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 07:32, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy deleted per CSD-G10 --Versageek 17:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bicycleman

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

Non-notable how to ____ DVD. The article is sourced exclusively to forums. I am unable to find any reliable sources. Icewedge (talk) 05:55, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:54, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gold Party

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

Contested speedy, and because of the citation of some RSes in the footnotes I think it ought to be discussed here rather than just speedied Daniel Case (talk) 05:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. Cirt (talk) 06:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is possible the article was created to link to a "Gold Party" website, which I removed. Cirt (talk) 06:44, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Evidently not notable enough for inclusion. — Aitias // discussion 23:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Titus

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

This is a well-written article, but the attention this person has gained from this blog has largely been local. Google produces about 4,000 hits, but aside from one link to CNN, it's all local press, forums, and Wordpress. Cue the Strings (talk) 05:44, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User: Anonymous Mark Titus is blowing up if you aren't paying attention. His blog now has over 100,000 hits and about 80,000 have come in the past two days. Give him a chance before you pull this deletion crap —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.236.245.128 (talk) 15:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep If there is a sports-only version of wikipedia, I concede fully that Mr. Titus' entry belongs there. But in my opinion, his contributions to the blog-revolution are perhaps as important as all you wikipediists' contributions to the wiki-revolution and they need to be recorded. Please keep the entry! Kingpin (talk) 00:38, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"keep" The blog is so good that in no time Titus will have National recognition. I heard a rumor that he's possibly going to be a guest on the Jim Rome show. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.253.36.175 (talk) 02:24, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • With all due respect to the IP commenters, can some registered users speak up? I'm just not sure how far Titus's contributions to the blogsophere have been recognized other than from fellow sports bloggers and one national supporter. There are an unlimited number of talented bloggers out there who get thousands of hits a day - but just because you're a strong writer doesn't mean your work merits an encyclopedia article, and Wikipedia isn't a stepping stone to help bolster your career. I don't mean to imply that this article is being used for personal gain, but I haven't really seen a case made yet for his notability other than the fact that Yahoo supports him. - Cue the Strings (talk) 05:54, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:07, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete There's a certain paradox in obtaining notability for being utterly unnotable. I'd require a good deal more attention from mainstream media for an article here. And ""keep" The blog is so good that in no time Titus will have National recognition." a little above, is of course an argument for deletion until he does perhaps have recognition. DGG (talk) 03:18, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — Notwithstanding the flood of single-purpose accounts and/or meatpuppets above, I come up with a couple of sources from gNews that can minimally establish notability of this blogger. MuZemike (talk) 03:44, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two links don't do it. In addition, I couldn't find his name mentioned in any of these links. The articles are about certain games in which he might have played a part, and it thus mentioned. In any case, it does not satisfy the "significant coverage" required by WP:BIO. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 03:21, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Duchy of Westarctica

Grand Duchy of Westarctica (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Supposed "micronation" with very few (849) ghits, most to blogs or to sites selling wooden coins. I haven't seen any secondary sources/news coverage. Doesn't seem to meet notability standards. Mr. Vernon (talk) 05:08, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's 6 sources at best, not really significant coverage. Michellecrisp (talk) 05:35, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listed in Lonely Planet, minted coins --Yopie 22:25, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
here is the Micronations entry... also added to the article... - Adolphus (talk) 00:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That article says that there is a "claiming" of unclaimed land in antarctica by some Americans and that no one lives in Westarctica. It also says the area is known as Marie Byrd Land. The supposed Micronation which seems a front to sell coins, was founded in 2001 and is a "monarchy" with a website? I feel like people are pulling my leg. What is notable about this non-nation except perhaps as a ruse, but since it hasn't been covered substantially I don't think an article is warranted even for that. Can I put a Hoax template on the article? ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:12, 22 December 2008 (UTC) The guy appointed himself "Grand Duke, and designed a flag. Should this be merged with a/the Byrd Station (1957-1972) article about the scientific research and drilling station and the Byrd Surface Camp opened by the US Antarctic program? Is it going to be made clear this is a hoax? ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:17, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You probably don't understand, what is "micronation", please read articles about it. --Yopie 01:48, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment OK, I'm satisfied that the level of notability required for micronations has been established. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 01:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Suggest keep closure per nominator withdrawal above. However I think it may be wise to offer some explanation within this article as to what a "micronation" actually is, to avoid confusion in readers who aren't familiar with the fact that this term means more than just "small country". Wiw8 (talk) 09:55, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We have the link micronation for that. - Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 11:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would usually agree, however in this particular case, the reader has to realise that micronation means something very different to the obvious meaning before they have a reason to click that link. While this won't be true of all readers, I think it is this same confusion that has lead some AFD commentators to suggest that this article may be a hoax (and perhaps also lead to the AFD nomination). I'm not suggesting we include the full contents of the micronation article in this article, just that it should be made a little clearer that this is not a recognised country/nation without relying on the reader knowing that this is true by definition of the term "micronation". This article currently refers to Westarctica in several places as a "country". Anyway we digress (this may be a topic for discussion on the article talk page though). Cheers Wiw8 (talk) 17:04, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct in saying that the word "country" should not be there, it should be "micronation". In the past there was a discussion on including the definition of micronation - however there is no reason to do this. The reason why there are links in Wikipedia is so that A) We do not have to repeat ourselves in every article and B) Readers can find a detailed article on the subject if they wish. If readers do not want to spend time researching the subject by simply using the link, then we don't have to waste time bringing the research to them. I think that it is important that we mention it here, seeing as AfD nominators in particular should learn about the importance of research, because they have the burden of proof, and therefore they need to do their research - not us. - Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 21:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the article and the introduction in particular don't make clear what "Westarctica" is. It's an unrecognized land claim from 2001 by some American guy. It's used to sell coins. The article is very misleading and it doesn't do a good job describing "Westarctica". I'm going to try to fix it up a bit. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Micronations only exist as nations in the minds of their claimants. They are a variety of vanity, like vanity books and there have even been vanity patents. With a very few exceptions they are all NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you that most are non-notable (you see several new ones pop up each week if you have List of micronations on your watch list). But, I believe if they have been written about in a book, and/or several times in notable newspapers, they pass WP:N, WP:V, and WP:RS concerns just like any other entity... - Adolphus (talk) 00:38, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Okay, I'm satisfied that Westarctica may have enough coverage to be included, but it needs to be made clear right up front in the intro of these articles what the subjects are and are not. The term micronation (tiny nation) is VERY misleading, even if it is established. So making clear that these are not officially recognized and are simply land claims aspiring to nation status is VERY important, especially when the claims are used to engage in dubious and sometimes fraudulent activities. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 21:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Le Vieux Pin Winery

Le Vieux Pin Winery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable winery that doesn't pass WP:CORP. Written as a blatant WP:ADVERT in a WP:WINEGUIDE style. Extreme dearth of reliable, independent third party sources to try and rewrite the article with as evidence by google and Google News as well as leading wine publications like Wine Spectator, Decanter and Wine Enthusiast, etc. Maybe the winery will eventually become notable and warrant an article that will written in a WP:NPOV and non-advert way. But apparently there are not enough sources now for that to happen AgneCheese/Wine 04:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Currently there isn't any rticles on Okanagan wine or British Columbia wine. However, in looking at the reliable sources that could be used to create such articles (like the World Atlas of Wine, Sotheby's Wine Encyclopedia, Oxford Companion to Wine and the BC wine guide), there is no mention of Le Vieux Pin Winery in these sources to even establish notability in that localized context. AgneCheese/Wine 17:49, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:43, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And Then There Were None (Band)

And Then There Were None (Band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The Hope We Forgot Exists EP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Who Speaks for Planet Earth? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

No notability asserted, no reliable sources. One of the albums was tagged for A9 (which I almost did myself) but that's clearly not the case as the band does have an article. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 03:55, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. What I doXenocideTalk to me 04:24, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, band is signed to Tooth and Nail Records. That being said, this article isn't going anywhere without more reliable sources. TheLetterM (talk) 07:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately many bands sing to a label and never release a single album and disappear into obscurity. So until album has been released they remain non notable. --neon white talk 01:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Happy Holidays 02:25, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sweet, if you've got some reliable sources to back that claim up, I'd be happy to change my vote.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 21:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It wouyldnt matter anyway local tours arent a criteria. --neon white talk 01:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Snowball/Speedy Delete clearly a CSD candidate, only reason it was taken to Afd was because of objection by creator but community clearly wants speedy deletion.--Jersey Devil (talk) 05:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Defending Nerds

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

It's essentially a blog.--Ipatrol (talk) 03:14, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete. G3, vandalism blatant misinformation. Mgm|(talk) 15:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Santiago

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

Not notable (fails WP:BIO). No sources. IMDb does not list him in cast of ANY of the films in filmography. In fact, he has no entry whatsoever at IMDb. Possible hoax, but more likely the article is self-promotional. Ward3001 (talk) 03:02, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Happy Holidays 02:25, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vanguard Unlimited

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

Unable to find reference to this in news media or general Google search. Non-notable. Would have done speedy but want to avoid re-creation. Bongomatic 03:05, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I Believed

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

Non-charting single, no sources outside youtube. Not a good redirect choice as a.) it seems a fairly common title, b.) it seems prone to being undone if redirected. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 02:54, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The second reason to not redirect is not sound. Redirects can be protected if they're the target of repeated reversal. - Mgm|(talk) 15:06, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 22:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan and Robbie

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

Non notable book series. IP (possibly author) removed prod with no explanation. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Apparently, the author dosen't like the fact that his article will go bye bye. He keeps removing the templates.Someone should block him for now. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
After I said that I would report him to AIV, he stopped removing the tag. Schuym1 (talk) 03:31, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - this fails G7 and makes no effort to claim the book's notability. This appears to be a vanity advertisement page for a manifestly non-notable product. Direct the author to the relevant policies, kill the article, and save us all the time and energy. Bullzeye (Ring for Service) 03:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a G7, G7 is "author requeests deletion". Do you mean A7 perhaps? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 04:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're right - I somehow mistakenly thought the article was about the author, not the books. But I still think it's G11. If I could find any outside sources, I wouldn't, but it's irreparably an ad. Graymornings(talk) 02:04, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John254 01:38, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Says

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

The guideline on notability of films gives an admittedly nonexhaustive list of reasons for inclusion:

  1. The film is widely distributed and has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics. No evidence of such.
  2. The film is historically notable, as evidenced by one or more of the following: None of the criteria in this grouping is applicable as five years have not elapsed since the film's initial release.
    • Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release.
    • The film was deemed notable by a broad survey of film critics, academics, or movie professionals, when such a poll was conducted at least five years after the film's release.
    • The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release.
    • The film was featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema.
  3. The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking. No evidence of such.
  4. The film was selected for preservation in a national archive. No evidence of such.
  5. The film is "taught" as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program. No evidence of such.

The references given do not amount to "significant coverage", and the external links are not "independent of the subject." Bongomatic 01:52, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree on being in minor festivals qualifying for GNG. The other point you're referring to is that the "film features significant involvement (ie. one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career," but that it should be have its own article "only if there is enough information on it that it would clutter up the biography page of that person if it was mentioned there." If Mike Reid is notable, then it seems unliklely that there would be too much about this film to include in an article on him. Bongomatic 15:09, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was G3 as vandalism/nonsense. Wow, I forgot to sign, that's rare. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 05:49, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HidenSeek Nursery

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

Nursery's aren't notable, I think. Could be G3 except seems not to be to blatant. WP:HOAX Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:48, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I believe you mean G3. G3 anyway, "vagina nursery" seems like something that wouldn't have been around 5 years ago much less 100+. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TenPoundHammer (talk • contribs) 2008-12-20 02:56:31
  • The article cites no sources. Searching, I can find no sources (although nurseries named "Hide N Seek" exist). The topic is barely discernable from the text, which is almost incoherent. This is on the borderline of speedy deletion territory, as a combination of vandalism (see the reverted edits, which don't inspire confidence in the non-reverted ones) and simply no context. The article gives no clue as to what sort of nursery this even (purportedly) is. Uncle G (talk) 05:38, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:04, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Self Help Africa

Self Help Africa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is no doubt a worthy charitable organization. However, to date there is no reason to believe that it has generated any significant coverage in reliable sources. Bongomatic 01:43, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy deleted. Nonsense articles like this don't need to come to AFD. Please tag them for speedy deletion. --Aude (talk) 02:48, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dr peeper

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

Seems to be a neologism. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:38, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy close as redirected. This didn't need an afd. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 04:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roben Talow (Bazi)

Roben Talow (Bazi) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Roben Talow (Bazi) has been replaced with Roben Talow which is the same athlete Honana (talk) 01:25, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Bduke (Discussion) 10:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bishops Bridge Rural Fire Brigade

Bishops Bridge Rural Fire Brigade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

non-notable volunteer fire brigade. Contested PROD Mattinbgn\talk 20:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Happy Holidays 01:09, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy deleted - G3 Vandalism by Masamage (talk · contribs) - (non-admin closure). Matt (Talk) 08:51, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beenus

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

Probably a hoax. I have been unable to find verification of the claim that Beenus is either a hair dye or type of lingerie. Instead Urban dictionary defines Beenus as a 'black penis' ([23]).

Additionally the article claims that "the meaning of beenus comes from the Greek word Beenalosto", however the Latin dictionary University of Notre Dame lists no such word as "Beenalosto". Icewedge (talk) 01:04, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. John254 01:59, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A-Girl

A-Girl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unnotable manga series that fails WP:BK and WP:MOS-MANGA. Single short direct to DVD adaptation is not a "significant adaptation." Little to no significant coverage in reliable sources. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is a single episode OVA. OVAs are direct to video releases. Most full length films released direct to video are not generally notable nor even an indication of popularity. Without significant coverage in reliables sources, this appears to just be a minor manga series with an minor OVA adaptation. There aren't even sources to confirm the OVA exists beyond the mention on ANN. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:28, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Direct to video releases in Japan have historically had a different status than in the West -- an OVA adaptation had, at the time of this one, as much cache as a theatrical movie, and had animation quality that compared to same (and better than television shows). —Quasirandom (talk) 14:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That only applies when the OVA is notable, per criterion 3 of WP:BK. --Farix (Talk) 23:36, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Um...I'm not seeing anything in that article about A-Girl at all. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, no, it's not about A-Girl, but the live-action movie adaptation of a different series by the same author. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Odd, I think I grabbed the wrong link. SorryHobit (talk) 02:43, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you retrace the one you thought you had? —Quasirandom (talk) 19:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Happy Holidays 01:00, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Evidence of notability based on authorship and likelyhood of Japanese sources. ChildofMidnight (talk) 14:55, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the series is two volumes with only being serialized for six months, so it had to have used some serious space in the monthly magazine in which it ran. As others have noted, OVAs are generally not cheap to produce, and the fact that a six-month series spawned an OVA as well as an accompanying soundtrack release shows that some serious money was put into this series. While single OVAs may not normally be notable on their own, taken with the manga as a whole, I think this one meets the criteria. I will look in the magazines I have from around that time period to see about coverage in articles (1984 and 1993). ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per above. It would help if Nihonjoe were to find just one direct reference in a magazine, as one strongly supports the notion that there's more. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Nihonjoe's comment. Extremepro (talk) 22:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Nominated in good faith but kept per WP:HEY (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:00, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Burnt Hair

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

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Fails WP:CORP. Schuym1 (talk) 00:52, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well they are noted in a Detroit Newspaper and on MTV's website for releasing albums for bands. Several of the bands they released albums for have articles on Wikipedia (some more notable bands than others I'll grant you). I think it's clear the the label is notable for their work with these bands and as part of their recording history. I think it's a fine stub article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 15:54, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:53, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

D-Styles

D-Styles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC, all that and a bag of chips. JBsupreme (talk) 00:50, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first two articles look identical and the third isn't very substantial in its coverage. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. discussion to merge/redirect can take place at the talk page –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kokborok tei Hukumu Mission

Kokborok tei Hukumu Mission (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable organization. Shovon (talk) 18:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, there was one !vote for a redirect. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  10:04, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per above, "there is an indication of notability. Substantial published works and activities." The article simply needs work, not deletion, I encourage the editor who put it up for deletion to take some time to improve the article, not delete it. travb (talk) 17:20, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually I went looking for sources to try and improve it, but I found almost nothing from independent RS's. Juzhong (talk) 16:44, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:53, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jess Dunsdon

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

Non notable local TV journalist and presenter. No independent reliable sources offered to show how the subject meets WP:BIO and none available on searching Nuttah (talk) 09:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sue Lenier

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

Poet - few google hits, despite claims to be bigger than Shakespeare, Ted Hughes and Sylvia Plath, doesn't seem to pass Wikipedia's notability guidelines Richard Hock (talk) 14:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, the claim about Shakespeare is backed up. Can anyone dig up the article? - Mgm|(talk) 14:53, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Book jacket claims--which is what I assume they are-- are meaningless, as is an absurdity in the Daily Mirror. She has two published books. Swansongs has only 51 holdings in WorldCat. Rain following : poems has 82. Even for poetry thats very low productivity & I'd want something much mroe reliable in the way of references.DGG (talk) 11:52, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete I've been following the discussion as I wasn't sure, but there didn't seem to be notability for inclusion. Unless something substantial is found and added I don't think the subject meets guidelines for inclusion. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Happy Holidays 02:24, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ~ mazca t|c 11:55, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Stringfellow

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

Unreferenced, does not seem to pass WP's notability guidelines, v. little external coverage Richard Hock (talk) 16:16, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Brookes

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

Journalist and Author, unreferenced, doesn't seem to meet notability guidelines, no references found by searching Richard Hock (talk) 17:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I would consider dropping this entry since being a writer occasionally for a popular magazine does not make one an authority or notable. Notability is this case should be if she is 1. an authority in her field, 2. if the writer is well written in many similar magazines works or 3. if the individual has had numerous interviews. Also the concern I have is the lack of good independent references. Although the magazine to which the author writes is well known, so are Fate, Let's Live, American National Biography, American Fitness and Health. Writing for any of the magazines would not warrant inclusion in an encyclopaedia. Being a Senior Editor would be worthy of inclusion. Royalhistorian (talk) 06:57, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Happy Holidays 02:23, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Happy Holidays 03:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vicki Scott

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

No reliable sources, and doesn't pass the criteria at WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 17:36, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delelte. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 03:14, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JavaScript editor

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

Article's topic is not notable. The actual topic should be covered by Integrated development environment, because most of the listed programs can handle more than just JavaScript. In addition, there are no articles on C editor or Java editor or PHP editor (simply a redirect to a list page). Given the placement of the external links in the article, it is possible this article is used by companies to increase their marketing profile or SEO rating. Voidvector (talk) 22:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but trim it down to a list of programs. No need to discuss what javascript is, or what an ide is. There are separate articles for that. Arid Zkwelty (talk) 12:34, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No references = not notable. Some of the intro content could perhaps be moved to Source code editor, but otherwise this is just a list of commercial software products with links to vendor pages. The entry on JavaScript could make the obvious point that people use editors to create JavaScript programs, but should surely not provide a vendor catalog. The analogy is that Chinese Cuisine is a legitimate subject, but Chinese Restaurants in Chicago is not. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:16, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Ok for the references argument, but the analogy is not quite correct IMO. What would you say about List of restaurant chains in the United States, then? I think the point here is that all restaurants are for-profit, and a list of these may be interpreted as some sort of catalog; but javascript editors can be free/open-source, so a list of these is not automatically spam or whatever you want to call it. It might be a mostly a list of commercial products by now, but it certainly has the potential to become more neutral if we let it evolve the wiki way. --Waldir talk 00:31, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply. I am not against articles about commercial products if they are notable. Microsoft Windows, Paris Hilton etc. reasonably have articles - millions of people are affected by or have opinions on these products. They are clearly notable. But I am against articles about less notable (to the general public) subjects that are structured in a way that will attract advertisers, with endless edit wars. Both JavaScript and Source code editor are entirely reasonable articles, just like Chinese Cuisine and Restaurant, but I am uneasy about the intersection, naming specific examples. If we dropped all mention of specific vendors, would there be enough left about JavaScript editors (as opposed to editors for all the other languages) to make a worthwhile article? I doubt it. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • On the other hand, maybe I should vote keep and add an entry for the Aymatth2 JavaScript editor. Amazing value at $19.95 plus shipping and handling. Many unique features. Be the envy of your neighbors. Everyone is buying it - but stocks are limited. Buy now and get a free fortune cookie with each order! I am sure I could find a vendor who really has a product and would be willing to give me a commission on the sales... Aymatth2 (talk) 01:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Move. The article if kept must be technical: how is built a JavaScript Editor. Why it is special. Would have to me moved into wikibooks in my mind. Macaldo (talk) 08:17, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No references, content is borderline G11, delete as per WP:V (none). Suggest disambiguation redirect to Text editor - DustyRain (talk) 16:17, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Punkmorten (talk) 17:21, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Isom

Jeff Isom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Zoids. MBisanz talk 01:45, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Command Wolf

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

This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of Zoids through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research, trivial model details, and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, and this is too trivial to require any separate coverage. TTN (talk) 23:51, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Not notable as independent article subject. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:31, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect permy comment on Bigasaur. - Mgm|(talk) 14:45, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Of the articles of Zoids on Wikipedia, this could be one of the more deserving of a keep. The Command Wolf is one of the most reproduced models in the entire Zoids range, with twelve distinct releases across the twenty-five 'lines', and four limited edition releases. The mecha also plays a major role in four of the five anime series', appearing in most episodes as the mecha of a major supporting character (Irvine in Chaotic Century and the first half of Guardian Force, Brad in the first half of Zero, Helmut in Fuzors), and appears throughout all five series' as minor characters.
Having said that, I don't care either way about the fate of this and other Zoids articles, as I contributed to them when I was young and stupid towards the Ways of the Wikipedia. -- saberwyn 01:16, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and discuss how to do the merge None of the reasons given are reasons for deletion, only for merging. The best way to clarify this is a straight keep, followed by a discussion about which of these articles should be kept or merged and how much to merge--none of this can appropriately be done article by article here.DGG (talk) 11:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and/or redirect to Zoids. (And update List of Zoids.) Merging is a completely acceptable outcome for an AFD discussion, and saying we can't agree on a merge here would be to impose excess bureaucracy, which Wikipedia is not. To quote our anti-bureaucracy policy (albeit with a touch of irony), it's obvious that we can resolve this AFD "through consensus-based discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures". 64.231.195.170 (talk) 22:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just because merging is an acceptable outcome for an AFD discussion does not mean that is acceptable to nominate something for AFD that should be merged. AFD is for things that need to be deleted, not for things that can reasonably be merged or redirected to more appropriate articles. WP:BEFORE says to consider these things before nominating, not after. Individually nominating dozens of similar articles with the same boilerplate rationale is excess bureaucracy, and it's obvious that most of the AFD's that are brought by the nominator could be resolved through the normal procedures outlined at WP:MERGE, instead of wasting the time of AFD participants and administrators for something that could be resolved "through consensus-based discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures" without needing an administrator to hit the delete button. It is far easier to apply a {{mergeto}} tag to an article than to nominate for deletion, the nominator could have added a merge tag to each of these Zoids articles and pointed them to a single discussion on Talk:List of Zoids, for example, to determine which of these articles should be merged and which (if any) should be kept as separate articles. It is likely that no one would have objected to a reasonable merge of these articles. It seems clear for the dozens of prior "discussions" (what little discussion there is) that the consensus for the majority of these articles is to merge and/or redirect, and I can't for the life of me figure out any reason other than obsessive-compulsiveness to continue to bring these to AFD after such consensus has already repeatedly been determined. DHowell (talk) 07:24, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and/or redirect, as usual, and slap the nominator with a school of trouts until he figures out that he can use merge tags, talk-page discussion, and bold, revert, discuss (with emphasis on the "discuss" part after a "revert" happens) to accomplish his goals without wasting the time of AFD participants and administrators. DHowell (talk) 07:24, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to List of Zoids. MBisanz talk 01:44, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bigasaur

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

This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of Zoids through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research, trivial model details, and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, and this is too trivial to require any separate coverage. TTN (talk) 23:52, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and discuss how to do the merge None of the reasons given are reasons for deletion, only for merging. The best way to clarify this is a straight keep, followed by a discussion about which of these articles should be kept or merged and how much to merge--none of this can appropriately be done article by article here.DGG (talk) 11:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep as I don't see why this needs to stay open any longer. Partly WP:SNOW, partly withdraw nomination so it works either way. (NAC)Tavix (talk) 21:27, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Nagle

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

Unnotable wreck diver. I couldn't find any sources on him and the article fails to mention exactly why he is notable. Tavix (talk) 00:10, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not notable as mentioned. JBsupreme (talk) 00:51, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Does not meet WP:BIO. What I doXenocideTalk to me 04:38, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral: "... it was his pioneering approach to wrecks that set him apart from other divers of his era. In 1985 Bill Nagle lead the team of divers who recovered the bell of the Andrea Doria, which had previously been thought lost and unrecoverable.Bill Nagle was also one of the first people in the Northeastern United States to commence dive chartering as a full time business with the custom dive vessel, the Seeker." These seem to be an assertion of notability to me, admittedly sourced offline. I leave it to others to decide if this makes him notable among wreck divers. Daniel Case (talk) 05:51, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I created the article, and I don't believe in voting on one's own articles, but I would just point out I only created it because of a number of redlinks in other articles (click on "links here" to see). Nagle's life and death were fairly well chronicled in the best selling book, Shadow Divers (which is what I used as my primary (and only) source), although the book is more principally about the mystery U-boat. --Legis (talk - contribs) 11:50, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Read through the Google results. Of course he's notable. Why on earth was this article nominated? Deletionist timewasters. Arid Zkwelty (talk) 12:29, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think he is notable enough. He has made some important discoveries. Looks to me like a pretty special person in his field of profession. As for failing WP:BIO, recovering the bell of the Andrea Doria seems to be a very notable achievement particularly since it was thought to be unrecoverable (which I think makes him suitable for inclusion per criteria "...has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field"). Chamal talk 12:47, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The fact the nominator failed to find sources is irrelevant, because the article already has multiple sources. Also, Chamal's assertion that did something notable in his field of expertise is something I would totally agree with. - Mgm|(talk) 14:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep And cleanup/ rewrite. ChildofMidnight (talk) 15:06, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Sofixit !! :D --RexxS (talk) 19:16, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to CollegeHumor. MBisanz talk 01:50, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jake and Amir

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

no reliable sources are available to attest to the notability of jake and amir. i posted on the talk page 2 weeks ago asking if anyone could provide reliable sources, and none were added. the only response was an affirmation that this article should be AfD'd. the article right now just seems to serve as a vanity page for jake and amir, and a magnet for lame vandalism Theserialcomma (talk) 01:24, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Please refer to http://www.JakeandAmir.com, http://www.facebook.com/jakeandamir, and http://www.bustedtees.com/jakeandamir for required "notability" of Jake and Amir. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.203.11 (talk) 03:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

None of those meet reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 04:18, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. What I doXenocideTalk to me 04:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2008_December_20&oldid=259181771"