Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 November 24: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 17:23, 24 November 2008

< November 23	November 25 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G3. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce macintosh

A Google search for '"Bruce Macintosh' Gerund' yields zero hits, while a similar search for "'Bruce Macintosh' Himalayas" points mostly to an astrophysicist. I'm inclined to believe this is a hoax, but at the very least he's a non-notable subject and thus safe for deletion. Consequentially (talk) 17:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed Delete ASAP as a hoax. Paste (talk) 17:26, 24 November 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. Stifle (talk) 19:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterdays (band)

I don't see any evidence of third-party, reliable sources covering this band. There are few Google hits (Yesterdays +Bogáti-Bokor gives just 400. All the external links are commercial sites, self-published ones, blogs and things of that sort: no newspaper articles, for instance. Biruitorul ^Talk 17:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak delete~~ in the absence of sources. I'd have rather seen the article tagged for improvement of the references first. Since they're a Hungarian band, there could be language and transliteration issues with searching for online sources. That said, if reliable sources turn up, my recommendation will likely switch to the keep side of the equation. —C.Fred (talk) 17:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nominator's reasoning is faulty. The number of google hits is irrelevant. It is the quality of the hits that matters. And both external links and references can be commercial (most are) or blogs. It's quite likely the reliable sources are in Hungarian or Romanian which requires someone who actually knows those languages to make the evaluation. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree the quality of the hits is relevant. As it happens, those hits are of unacceptably low quality: MySpace, YouTube, blogs and the like. Per WP:SPS, blogs are actually not acceptable: "self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, knols, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable". Per WP:V: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Once those are adduced, I'd even be happy to withdraw this nomination. That has yet to happen. I was unable to find much in Romanian on this band, but I've asked a Hungarian editor to see if anything is available in his language. -- Biruitorul ^Talk 21:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Seems notable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't mean to sound abrasive, but notability is established through reliable sources, not through "seeming" notable. (See also WP:JNN.) -- Biruitorul ^Talk 01:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the sources I could find and the information in the article I think it's notable based on Wikipedia guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Biruitorul, please visit the listed Reviews and you will find that there are many reliable resources. Please put away your feelings about the Hungarian minorities in Romania (I strongly have the feeling that your submission for deletion is something personal... please look at the relevance of the hits, or read the reviews which are published on very reliable websites... Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.105.122.11 (talk) 11:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And let's not forget, that Progarchives (www.progarchives.com) is the best and the most reliable source for progressive rock music on the internet! Here's a quote from their Yesterdays entry:

"About six months ago, I heard YESTERDAYS for the first time, and was really impressed with the exquisite combination of 70's Symphonic influences with Hungarian folk elements, so after I asked the team, the addition was approved immediately."

So, I don't see why this submission for deletion is relevant (if there aren't any personal issues of course...). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.105.122.11 (talk) 12:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't checked the full history of the page, but Progarchives does not have an entry on the English Wikipedia. That calls into question its prominence as a source, but not necessarily its reliability. Also, please keep the discussion on the article, the underlying subject, and the related sources; this discussion is not the place for discussion or personal attacks regarding any involved editor. —C.Fred (talk) 12:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that comment, C.Fred, and just to clarify: it seems preposterous that when I nominate an article for deletion for its failure to have reliable sources, that somehow would translate into my "feelings about the Hungarian minorities in Romania" -- which I have neither stated nor have any relevance whatsoever to this nomination. 86.105.122.11, please do review WP:AGF before repeating such a charge. -- Biruitorul ^Talk 15:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Long comment to assess the reviews. I just hit the about page for each review's website, and:

Arlequins is an Italian fanzine dating back to 1990. It has a strike against it for being a fanzine, although it is a long-standing one.
Musearecords.com is the band's ~~website~~ label and is not independent.
DPRP is a website dating back to 1995 and maintained currently by a staff of 16 editors.
Progressor is an official representative of Musea Records in Russia, so its independence is questionable.
Music in Belgium is unclear. I can't find an FAQ document on the site.
ProGGnosis likewise lacks an explanation.
Progarchives appears to be fan-edited, which generally fails the reliability test.
Babyblaue appears to have evolved from a maillist, which would put it in the realm of non-reliable and fan-edited.

In my opinion, DPRP meets the editorial rigor standard that goes along with WP:RS and the general notability guidelines, and I'll give Arlequins the benefit of the doubt. —C.Fred (talk) 12:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- I must correct You, Musea Records is not the band's website, please check it again. The band's website is www.yesterdays.hu Musea is a well known French record label, dedicated to the promotion of Progressive Rock. Since we are talking about progressive rock (which is not a popular musical style), resources and articles are very hard to find. Musea - in my oppinion - is a very reliable reference (since they only promote quality music... just have a look on their website...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.105.122.11 (talk) 12:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - My bad. Musea is their label. Same issue with independence, though. —C.Fred (talk) 17:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - If we are talking about their article about the band, You are right. But if you are familiar with progressive rock music labels in Europe (Inside Out is the bigest, Musea is the second one and has a big reputation all over the World) than for a band is a very serious reputation being released by Musea and this is why I consider this a reliable reference for the band. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.105.122.11 (talk) 14:00, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I didn't say that Musea isn't reliable. I said that, for purposes of the general notability guidelines, Musea isn't independent. —C.Fred (talk) 15:25, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak/provisional keep. The DPRP and Arlequins coverage are sufficient to keep the article around—at least for now. After their second album is out, I'd like to see more independent coverage of the band. If the second album doesn't happen, and if the article doesn't evolve from its current state, then another AfD would be warranted (though not for at least six months to a year, IMHO). —C.Fred (talk) 12:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note I don't really have time now to look into this very much. After a quick search I've found an online available interview with them on HirTV (basically the Hungarian Fox News, or conservative CNN if you wish). Squash Racket (talk) 16:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After a little google research I found 4 other resources (in Hungarian) about the band (I will continue to look after more articles):
- [1] - on a Hungarian Art Portal (based in Hungary) about the MiniProg Festival 2007 in Budapest (featuring ex-Yes guitaris Peter Banks)
- [2] - in a Romanian Newspaper called "Szabadság" (some thoughts/report after a Yesterdays gig)
- [[3]] - a long interview after Yesterdays released its first album in 2006 on Romania's most important political/cultural portal www.transindex.ro (in Hungarian)
- [[4]] - some photos from a Yesterdays gig in 2007, on the Félsziget Festival's website (one of Romania's bigest rock festivals) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.105.122.11 (talk) 23:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
and some more:
- [[5]] - a very long interview in English in the German Progressive Newsletter
- [[6]] - a review about Progfarm Festival 2006 (The Netherlands) including Yesterdays - in Dutch —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.105.122.11 (talk) 23:33, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Dragon Ball characters#Ginyu Force. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:01, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recoome

This article does not establish any sort of notability independent of the Dragon Ball series. It is covered adequately within the character list for the series. TTN (talk) 16:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. It is completely unreferenced and should be redirected to the character list mentioned above. TopGearFreak ^Talk 17:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the character list. This word makes a reasonable search term for people who want to find the list. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: Let the cruft vikings take the content and redirect the page to List of Dragon Ball characters. -- Goodraise (talk) 07:07, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not establish notability through real world context in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. Jay32183 (talk) 07:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Dragon Ball characters. This one character is no more notable than any other DBZ character - certainly less so than Cell, who doesn't have his own article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unscented (talk • contribs) 20:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It's a great page with lots of info. Update: It has info like voice actors, video games, saga's and abilities that are not on the other page, no one will get this info if this is not here. KeepRecoome(talk) — KeepRecoome (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete no assertion of notability here. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:14, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Dragon Ball characters#Ginyu Force. Fails WP:NOTE and WP:FICTION. --Farix (Talk) 21:09, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Redirect. Very, very minor character.Tintor2 (talk) 15:39, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, possible speedy. Adequately covered in main list. Does not assert notability for character. Fails WP:NOT and WP:N. Sasuke9031 (talk) 18:46, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 19:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Helms

No notability. Appeared in some films, but uncredited. His own home page sings his praises but no notability established from this (unreliable) source. Oscarthecat (talk) 16:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable actor. Paste (talk) 16:40, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, he was credited in Cabin Fever and in Ding-a-ling-Less. 2 does not equal 0. 2≠0. Daniel Christensen (talk) 17:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, also, I did not count his homepage as a refernece, it's an external link genius. The IMDB entry is a reference. Daniel Christensen (talk) 17:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Recommend reading WP:CIMDB about the usage of IMDB as a reference. Also, inclusion on IMDB does not establish notability. Please be civil to other users. The comment above, and the "What the Hell, Man" comment on my talk page, is inappropriate. Alphageekpa (talk) 17:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Article does not "indicate the importance or significance of the subject," and the subject appears unnotable at best. Quoting WP:BIO, "The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded."" "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." Furthermore, for actors... "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, or other productions. Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment." From my observations, this individual fails all criteria for notability. Alphageekpa (talk) 17:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - i didn't want to speedy this, but the lead roles seems to be for local productions (remakes) and beyond the one credited role in an film that has an article here and the TV appearances there do not seem to be sufficient reliable sources. He seems to be quite accomplished as an martial artist, though. See e.g [7], but unless better sources come up, rather later.--Tikiwont (talk) 19:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CommentWhat makes these discussions pointless is that even if I add to the article it wont't matter because all too many people have already said delete. It's hard to explain what I mean. It's as frustratingt as the DMV.

Theortically, this discussion must be updated every time the article is modified, because these decisions reflect outdated opinions every time the article is modified. Daniel Christensen (talk) 18:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the deletion discussion is about the potential and not just the current version of the article. Additional sources can be brought up here or added to the article itself in which case it is useful to drop a note here. Many editors will actively look for sources and others are willing to change their opinion if new information comes up. See eg. WP:HEY and WP:RESCUE. Of course it helps to post articles that are reasonably cited to begin with.--Tikiwont (talk) 20:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 25 November 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 05:44, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Elevator

Contested prod. Magazine with no assertion of notability. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 16:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback? Rather than contesting every change, could you at least be constructive and outline aspects you think need changing. "Magazine with no assertion of notability" isn't very descriptive and implies that you either assume the magazine is fake or has no worth, which is a fairly bold statement to make for this publication. The legitimacy of the publication should be evident by the presence of an ISSN... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seopher (talk • contribs) — Seopher (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Response It might help you to read the criteria for notability at Wikipedia. It is no judgement on the existence or value of the magazine, but merely a question of whether this magazine is so significant that an international encyclopedia would require an article about it. All you need to do is add a few independent sources that discuss the magazine's importance in its field. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:57, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The title of the magazine makes it a little difficult to google for reliable sources of notability. Using the search term, "The Elevator," "magazine," and "HEPT", I found 0 hits using google news, and only a few hits using google, none of which appeared to affirm the notability of this publication. Of course, I am open to the possibility that my methodology was flawed; I'd be glad if someone with 133ter google-fu can find the sources that I couldn't. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable. The article offers no clues to notability and, as above, I've been unable to find any independent reliable sources. Nuttah (talk) 14:40, 28 November 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 02:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perimeter (EU Project)

No indication of notability for this project. The author noted in his edit summary while removing my PROD nomination, "This article is about a FP7 project" (Category:FP7_Projects), but I don't know that being undertaken by FP7 is deemed to confer automatic notability on a project, so I felt that my concern hadn't been addressed, and I decided to list the article here for discussion. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:57, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have checked the guidelines stated on the Category:FP7_Projects page and I looked at some of the project descriptions. After that I came to the conclusion that this project is relevant to be shown at Wikipedia. I agree that it is probably not a main criteria that the project is an FP7 project. But the project itself surly is relevant, as mobility is getting more important every day (just think about the current trend about Netbooks and iPhones). I personally believe that this article should stay in Wikipedia. I'm happy to work on the text, please give me hints about what you would like to see improved in the article. Haemmerlech (talk) 16:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This isn't an article on mobility, so the notability of the topic of mobility isn't under discussion here. From "X is notable" it doesn't follow that every topic related to X is notable. CAD is a notable topic. It doesn't follow that a CAD app I create and make available for download is notable; it won't be unless and until it achieves such notability. WP:Notability is the source of guidelines for assessing or establishing the notability of a topic. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable. No independent reliable sources have been provided and none are obvious on a search. Nuttah (talk) 14:25, 28 November 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) 00:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is precedent that EU FP5/6/7 projects are notable. Since these are mainly research projects they get very little media coverage but are cited in peer-reviewed papers. See Google Scholar. McWomble (talk) 06:27, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I just looked at the Google Scholar search and found nothing. The word "perimeter" in each case was the generic word. As for precedent, it seems to me that the existence of such a precedent of that sort would be inconsistent with the guidelines, which make it quite clear that each topic's notability is independent established. Every item in a notable list isn't inherently notable; every item belonging to a notable category isn't inherently notable; every episode of a notable television series isn't inherently notable; etc. —Largo Plazo (talk) 07:41, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lots of projects receive EU funding, but it doesn't make them EU projects or exempt them from notability criteria. Blue-Haired Lawyer 20:14, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I agree with Blue-Haired Lawyer. --MaNeMeBasat (talk) 07:46, 1 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 05:44, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slainey mace

Contested prod. Military award with no assertion of notability, and no source asserting its existence. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 15:54, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Zero google hits, and the linked pages do not even give the name "Slainey". Mangoe (talk) 18:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Air Training Corps is a youth organisation and this award within their ranks, whilst maybe notable to them, has no coverage. I would suggest merge but it is impossible to even verify its existence. Nuttah (talk) 14:05, 28 November 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 05:43, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prince DisneyMania

Unsourced speculation about a 2010 release, a 2011 release, and a 2012 release. WP:HAMMER applies. AndrewHowse (talk) 15:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All hammer the crystals. Besides, if these people are flops in the future, Disney won't care about them. --Numyht (talk) 16:11, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All 2012, wow...imagine the size of the crystal ball you'd need to see such a thing... -Verdatum (talk) 21:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete All We've been down this road before with an AfD about Disneymania albums five years out in the future. Also block Boi91 for vandalism as a probable sock of Kielz86 (both insist that Sher'Quan Johnson exists as the hot new Disney star via speedied articles about her). Nate • (chatter) 05:18, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Adding Group DisneyMania to this nom in addition. Nate • (chatter) 05:21, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - ...and one more with the Disney Games 2009; it's not a album article, but since it's Disneyverse and definite WP:CRYSTAL, it can fit in here too. Nate • (chatter) 05:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ooh. Delete All; violates WP:CRYSTAL. SKS2K6 (talk) 23:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And another, slated for 2012. A9 doesn't apply since the performers are notable. --AndrewHowse (talk) 04:42, 28 November 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. Stifle (talk) 19:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Library Production Service

Poorly written and has not been worked on since 2007 Hairy Perry 15:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete- Little content and clearly nobody plans to add to the article. What little information contained belongs on the University of Michigan Library article rather than its own page BritishWatcher (talk) 15:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are suggesting merging the material, why do you still vote delete then? -= Mgm|^(talk) 18:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to University of Michigan Library. - Mgm|^(talk) 18:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect - Changing vote to suggestion made above sorry. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A good deal can be added to the article. The various projects that it provides the software for are among the most important in the world. Their functionality is at the basis of the improved new version of Google Books. The article does need expansion. DGG (talk) 19:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - No valid deletion reasoning given in rational. The only reasons given are plainly reasons to be bold and edit it. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 09:45, 25 November 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. Stifle (talk) 19:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Randall Travel

Previous AFD result was "Delete-Spam". Page has not been updated with non-biased 3rd party references, as page continues to read as an advert SpikeJones (talk) 15:28, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete A possible G11 here, plus I think this is a WP:SNOW cause. --Numyht (talk) 16:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. It's not optimal, but decidedly different from the previously deleted versions. It now actually has some independent sources. I'm prepared to give the author the benefit of the doubt if the self-referential sources are cut down to a bare minimum to assert non-controversial stuff in the next few days/weeks. - Mgm|^(talk) 18:02, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (I created it) Could somebody please talk me through the problems? I don't know what G11 means. I will address the problems individually. It "continues to read as an advert"? I have been critical, much more so than last time, when I was too new to wikipedia to understand the concept of advertising on it. I thought that the better I made it sound to a certain level, the more likely it would be seen as worthy of inclusion. I don't see where the advertising is. I find it a very hard line to tread, between not advertising and proving that it is worthy as an article. Obviously, I think it should be kept: it is as neutral as I could make it (if somebody else went through it that would help a lot), it is worthy of an inclusion (National Geographic is about to run something on it, I think: it fills the criteria of coverage from non-biased sources, as well as being significant for the number of awards etc it has won. Should I make a list of them? A plea: Please google Martin Randall Travel, and read a page on it that is not written by the company. I will do as MacGyver said, but I don't quite get what he means. I referenced certain facts from the least controversial source there is: what the website says. Are you implying that the website may be wrong/lying? Help me out here. I simply do not see what is wrong. The website quotes 48 excellent reviews (implying lots of others not so good and not quoted), and actually there was one in the Daily Mail on the weekend. Unfortunately, the company's clientele is rather too old to be overly familiar with, or of interest to, the internet, removing a lot of potential sources that only appear in papers. I will say this: I am losing my faith in wikipedia. The more I see of it, the more I see deletion being used as the easiest way forward. It is my personal opinion (which should not interfere with this process) that this is wrong in any case that is not spam. Not believing that this is spam, I would vote keep whether I had created the page or not.Fuzzibloke (talk) 21:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is established by demonstrating the article subject has been covered substantially by reliable media. I don't know if being included as a travel marketer in travel magazines is sufficient. What makes this company important enough to be included in an encyclopedia? This is usually determined by showing its been covered by good sources as a notable entity, which I don't think includes acknowledging its existence or noting that it sells tours. I'm having trouble finding notability according to our guidelines. Is there something in about its history or a source that talks about the company as a substantial and important subject? ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I did a casual Google search for "Martin Randall Travel", and only one News result appeared (as an advert for a travel trip). There were no unbiased 3rd-party pages in the first 100 articles returned either. One page, from Frommer's, simply reiterated a quote that already existed on the site. The refs in the current article are (mainly) from the company itself, and do not provide any insight as to the *encyclopedic* reason for the article. As WP policy states, just because a company exists, does not mean a WP article needs to exist as well.SpikeJones (talk) 22:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment G11 above refers to the criteria for speedy deletion - Numyht is opining that the article is blatant advertising. - Eldereft (cont.) 22:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Creator's Comment Thanks for that. This article is not blatant advertising, I promise. You will note how at least one of my more critical points needs a citation; I had trouble finding harsh articles. But, if you want, I could list some articles here which show that it fulfils the criteria. I repeat that the website itself lists forty eight articles; isn't that something? It is unfortunate that so many clients are above "the internet age" (my parents being younger than the average). There are several articles talking about MRT. What is the definition of "unbiased"? Are the writers not allowed to have been on a tour, in case they became biased from it? I know that not every company deserved a WP page, but a leader in its field with loads of awards and twenty thousand current subscribers, renowned for its orgaanisation etc, surely deserves a mention more than a lot of articles. The links to the website merely prove something from the primary source, but I have included secondary sources.

There are two problems found in this article: advertising (which is reparable, and which I will do a lot to stop) and notability, which is inherent and unchangeable. Let's face it: the majority of articles in wikipedia (ie anything not rated good or better) is poor or worse. However, they are in wikipedia because of their potential. I would like to move away from the "delete for advertising" idea (though I would appreciate help to fix it). The issue here for me is notability, right? I will find those relevant pages, shall I? To SpikeJones: Do even 1% of the articles in newspapers make it onto the internet? We cannot rely on that for anything, really. Just independent, online reviews, which do exist, even if there aren't dozens of them. Fuzzibloke (talk) 08:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Fuzzibloke: you need to answer the question of what makes an article *about* this company encyclopedic? Info about the cost of tours, the number of brochures sent out, etc, or that the company has x tours planned for 2009 are all advertising related statements. If I were to go through the current article and remove all non-encyclopedic statements, you'd probably be left with 5 sentences (an exaggeration, I'm sure, but I chose "5" to make a point), and as such you would have an article that could still fail notability. What is significant about this travel company in the industry when compared to *every* other travel company? Not the tours offered, the company. There have been no counter-refs providing unbiased-3rd-party articles *about* the company (again, not articles about the tours, but articles written about the company). Unbiased does not necessarily mean critical. Aside from notability, one other concern that may be raised is whether you have a vested interest in having this article appear. As you are the article creator, what was the reasoning you have for feeling like the article should be created in the first place? SpikeJones (talk) 13:48, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Thank you for that. Articles about the company... there is the Australian one referenced somewhere. Other than that, I now see that you have a good point. However, I fail to understand why articles about the tours do not contribute something. Surely if the tours have secondary sources, they deserve articles, but in that case, it would be easier to cover everything on this page? I will say again, you are right about the shortage of online articles that are not about individual tours, but there have almost certainly been some in nonline sources. Does that help at all? I see that I do not have your honed sense of what is encyclopedic, which renders me probably unable to rewrite this satisfactorily without support. The company is significant, in my opinion, for dominating its specialist field and winning awards. What defines unbiased in your view? If the writer was a client, does that count as biased? If only there was a way to find out more about this national geographic article that was mentioned somewhere. I have no idea whether it would be sufficient - heck, it might even be an advert - but it would be useful. Pity we won't find out any more (if there is any more) for a few weeks. And I have been fighting, above everything else, for neutrality. Why did I write this? (skip the next bit if you don't want a story) A few years ago, I fell in love with the wikipedia ideal without being old enough to have bothered to read all the guideline stuff. Martin Randall Travel was something I knew about, which I could obtain facts for easily, which did not already have an article, like the other couple of articles I wrote. Yes, they were bad. I can't remember how many I created, but only two stubs I made from dead links have survived. This one was the only one which had a nomination debate before its deletion. I was disheartened, and stopped creating articles, just dabbling in WP. Then that questionnaire came around a few weeks ago, and I realised I really must get into WP again. This article had been called "pork," so I reasoned that if I recreated it more neutrally, it should be alright. It became a sort of flagship for me. You did ask... Anyway, addressing the comment below: one of the profiles is an awards thing. I don't know what the other awards are (I could find out eventually) so I don't know how notable they are. Taken together, I think they are, but for now I don't have much to go on. If my article counts as contentless blurb, I must honestly say that I do not know how to write an encyclopedia article. Which is annoying, as MRT tour-goers and Wikipedia editors are going to be almost mutually exclusive. Well that was rather long... oops, I think I sound rather too defensive... Fuzzibloke (talk) 14:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: I'll try to be brief:

Regarding awards received - they need to be notable awards that are recognized in the industry.
Regarding articles written - they need to be about the company, not about the tours. Business-related articles profiling the company or founder are good. Travel articles talking about a destination with a singular "travel can be done via Martin Randall" blurb is bad.
Regarding WP policy - now that you're old enough, please read the guidelines and help articles that we have been pointing you to. Reading and understanding those policies will make you a better WP editor.
Regarding "articles about the tours" - what is significantly encyclopedic/notable about the tours that would allow them to have articles about the tours... instead of articles about the destinations themselves?
Regarding "the company is significant, in my opinion" - the issue is whether it is signiciant in others opinion. You may think you child is the cutest, most well-behaved child on the planet, but others may call it a spoiled, ugly, little brat. But if there is an outside reference that could show your child being featured as the unlikely author of a book on child etiquette, then you would have something to work with.

I'm sure others could chime in, but the essence is that WP is not a repository of all things. I know of an "award winning travel agency" down the street, but Joe-Bob's Swamp Tours would never make it as an entry because it's just not unique/notable enough on its own. Perhaps when they become known as the world's largest Swamp Tour operator, but not now. SpikeJones (talk) 14:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Thanks for that summary. In order: what makes a notable reward? How large must the field be? Do multiple small ones add up? Ref 5 links to a non-tour article. I have read lots of guidelines. Wikipedia is not just about helping existing articles in small ways: I believe the optimum article number is several million. Articles about the tours was just a point I was making. I put the "in my opinion" there for that reason. I was trying to demonstrate why it's my opinion. The following quote is taken from the website: "Sunday Telegraph, January 2003 ‘Now unquestionably the leading specialist in cultural tours, with an extensive programme themed on art, music, architecture, archaeology or history.’ — Tim Jepson" Of course, that isn't good enough as we do not have the entire article. However, you see my point. I know wikipedia is not a repository of all things. This company is undeniably notable. The question is: is it notable enough? But about the whole writing as an encyclopedia thing, I must say I just do not get it. Otherwise I would have written it the correct way, as I tried. Fuzzibloke (talk) 16:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: What makes a notable award? It helps if the award ceremony is covered in the mainstream press, for example, and not just by the people issuing the award. A Webbie award for best website is notable. A "Joe Bob Cool Link Of The Day" award is not. Multiple non-notable awards do not equate one notable one (see previous sentence). Regarding the quote "Now unquestionably the leading specialist in tours...": "now" should be replaced with an exact timeframe, "unquestionably" is hyperbole and would be removed, and "leading specialist" needs to be qualified by an external source (in other words, if there is any doubt as to the fact-base of the statements, then they must be removed). This would leave "the specialist in tours", which is not unique/notable enough of a statement to warrant having an article written. In any case, so we do not digress too far away from the original topic, I will refrain from further addressing your concerns here so the AFD discussion can continue appropriately. SpikeJones (talk) 17:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Without checking the article, notability in the context of companies is discussed at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). I suspect that many of the articles being cited are viewed by other editors as "fluff" pieces which do not provide the sort of in-depth coverage needed to write an encyclopedia article rather than another almost contentless blurb - harsh reviews are not necessary, but critical attention of some sort is. Has the company been profiled for one of the awards mentioned above? The awards themselves may also confer WP:notability if they are prominent to the field. - Eldereft (cont.) 13:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to be a somewhat notable company. Using a Google News Archive search, I've found several articles that are about this company, Times Online, The Age, Travel Trade Gazette UK & Ireland, Telegraph, The San Francisco Chronicle, and The Mail on Sunday. This company has also received significant coverage in a history book, titled A History of Western Architecture. Even if the AITO Travel Company of the Year Award is non-notable, Martin Randall Travel has received some coverage for this award. The significant coverage of this travel company indicates that it is notable and passes WP:COMPANY. Cunard (talk) 23:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The ITM Travel Gazette item is a press release; The Age article was not written from a non-biased source, but rather is from a paid tour guest of the company; I'll grant the Telegraph article is about a business item, although the SFGate version of the same story states that info from Martin Randall Travel is from a press release; the Times Online article doesn't have any red flags on its surface; the amazon book reference needs context, as the excerpts indicate content is phrased as if from a travel brochure advertising upcoming trips. SpikeJones (talk) 23:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Even though several of these sources are not 100% neutral, they indicate that this company is notable. The article from the Travel Trade Gazette might be a press release, but the fact that the "world's oldest travel trade newspaper" wrote an article about it asserts some notability. The Age is an Australian newspaper which is a very reliable source. The reviewer of this travel company interviewed the Martin Randall, the founder of the company, so this article is a wealth of reliable information about the history of the company. The article quotes from an employee (in this case, the founder) at the company, but isn't that what the majority of articles do? I agree with you about book probably containing excerpts from a travel brochure, but the other sources seem fine to me. Cunard (talk) 03:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: The article from The Age is footnoted with the disclaimer of "(author) Michael Shmith was on the Austro-Hungarian Festival cruise as the guest of Martin Randall Travel". The issue with using this as a ref is that Mr Shmith would not be a neutral, unbiased, 3rd party. Other articles that solely use/quote the press releases are equally suspect as all they are acting as is PR distribution. The earlier comment about AITO brings up the fact that the organization has 150 members -- why should an encyclopedia article exist about THIS AITO member and not any of the other 149 travel companies that are members? SpikeJones (talk) 05:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: That's true, but Michael Schmith a newspaper reporter who is writing for a notable newspaper. Even though the author of this review has a slightly slanted opinion of the travel company, he's still a reliable source. Why would Schmith write about this company and use this company's services out of the 149 travel companies in the AITO? The answer is that he wrote a review because he was most likely invited by the company to attend a complimentary vacation. This invitation gave the company coverage that they probably wouldn't have received. Nonetheless, this is acceptable, reliable coverage. Although Schmith now has a favorable opinion of the company, his article still qualifies as a third-party source. It's not neutral, but it's still third-party coverage. Addressing your second point: WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNOTEXIST isn't a good deletion argument. Articles for the other AITO companies haven't been created because they either a) haven't received enough coverage or b) editors haven't gotten around to creating pages for them. Winning the AITO award adds to this company's notability but is not the only reason for it. The other references I mentioned above are enough for this company to pass the notability requirements. Cunard (talk) 06:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Age does not harp on about the company; it talks about the founder. Surely, whether or not the writer was biased towards the company is irrelevant, since he does not take the opportunity to go on about how great it is, nor does he take the opportunity to go on about how great The Age is, or any other thing he might be biased towards... if you see my point. Fuzzibloke (talk) 09:58, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Thanks for notifying me, Spike. I contested an earlier speedy nom. The article is far better than its earlier deleted version, but the article could use more improvement. The sources are okay but not great. Most are either lower quality (reliability) sources or aren't focused directly on the company. I think there's enough quality in the sources to require a full discussion instead of a speedy deletion. Royal broil 02:35, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, feedback is not flowing in right now. So far we have a delete nomination, a strong delete citing G11, a keep (UPDATE: two keeps), a creator's keep and two weak keeps. There is consensus that this article is flawed, and division over notability. There is a possibility that we will have no more participants until the five days are up. I will try to weed out advertising, but I have said that I may have trouble spotting it. What do you think the situation is, Spike? You and Numyht are the only ones to challenge this article's existence at this stage. Fuzzibloke (talk) 13:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article needs a good looking at but the newspaper articles linked to (and included in this discussion) amount to more independent sources than many others have. Nuttah (talk) 13:47, 28 November 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 The Young and the Restless. As there is no article on locations of this show already, I decided to give the show as merge target. I think a new article about such and similar locations may be a good idea though. So Why 14:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fenmore's Department Stores

No real world information, references, media coverage, no notability outside the show. If we delete the employees sections, nothing important stays to be merged somewhere. Magioladitis (talk) 15:02, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Significant fictional location for very major series's. The importance importance of these things does have some relation to the importance of the series. The list of employees serves to associate the characters--and such series do need such explanations to keep things moderately coherent. So that at least would need to be merged. DGG (talk) 19:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A google search gives almost nothing. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

nothing, or alost nothing. If it gics only 2 usable refs, thats enough. DGG (talk) 10:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No real world significance. Where is the independent coverage from reliable third party publications? We're not a host for original research, nor are we supposed to be a primary source of information. JBsupreme (talk) 06:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability not established through real world context in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. Jay32183 (talk) 06:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable Y&Rcruft. Nate • (chatter) 07:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge If notability isn't established independently, it means the article shouldn't stand on its own. But that doesn't mean it can't be merged somewhere like a list of Y&R locations. I don't see why the character list would need to be removed, it's a crucial part of the article (It's a way to group the people together). - Mgm|^(talk) 12:04, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:CORP. Schuym1 (talk) 17:27, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the damn thing: Not independently notable. Schuym1 (talk) 20:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:CORP for a fictional TV show store? I guess it would meet it in real life. Nate • (chatter) 20:10, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I made a mistake. Schuym1 (talk) 20:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:52, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If no sources, may as well delete & create redirect. Merge to a section in the series (or better target) if there is anything sourced to merge. No proof of independant notability.Yobmod (talk) 11:32, 4 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. Stifle (talk) 19:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of World War II aces from Philippines

PROD removed with the reasoning, "better than not telling people anything about World War II aces from Philippines". Currently a list of one, no evidence that more Filipino World War II aces will emerge any time in the near future. Mosmof (talk) 14:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The one person on listed currently is included in other lists to do with Filipino military personnel and WW2 history. No need for a further list BritishWatcher (talk) 14:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the ace, Jesus A. Villamor: there are enough such lists for other countries that this might not be at all an unreasonable search target. Nyttend (talk) 15:54, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This looks like a clear attempt to airbrush a notable Philippine pilot out of history when people of other nationalities can be found from the top-level list. What movitates people to try to conceal small countries' achievements like this? Juzhong (talk) 17:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have an actual policy-based reason for keeping this list or are you just going to ignore WP:AGF and accuse me of trying to destroy Filipino heritage through housekeeping procedures on Wikipedia? --Mosmof (talk) 18:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well which is more important, the ability to access Filipino heritage or wikipedia housekeeping procedures? Juzhong (talk) 18:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - You missed my point completely. You're presenting a false dilemma - you can perform Wikipedia housekeeping AND preserve the "ability to access Filipino heritage", whatever that means. My point was your unwillingness to WP:AGF and your specious reasoning for keeping an (IMHO) unhelpful list. Mosmof (talk) 23:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - You still don't understand the problem with deleting the list. Let me try to talk you through it. Try to imagine: Someone from the Philippines is interested in World War 2 aces. They come to Wikipedia. They find the list of WW2 aces. Unfortunately you deleted the Philippines part, so they go away with the impression that there are no WW2 Philippine aces. This is a *BAD THING*, because actually there *IS* a WW2 Philippine ace, and they would probably have wanted to read all about him. That's what encyclopedias are for. I can't really make this much simpler. Juzhong (talk) 00:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus A. Villamor appears on several other lists including Filipino military personnel and Philippines WW2 history, its not like people are attempting to have the artice on Villamor removed, simply a list which at present only has 1 person on it. If you can find many others to go on that list then ill change my vote to keep, but one person doesnt justify a list. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:57, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This seems to have been created in order to be a link from this [8]. Instead of listing the air aces from each nation (and in the case of excessive length, putting in a link), the creators of that list have something that ostensibly looks like this "Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria...". Clearly, Jesus A. Villamor should be mentioned in articles about air aces, but the List of World War II aces by country could certainly be reorganized to be more informative of an article. I'm going to be bold and add Villamor's name to that list, where it will be regardless of what happens to this article. Mandsford (talk) 19:57, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a single entry is not a list. But I agree with the above comment, it should be "merged" (if we can call it that) to List of World War II aces by country which requires major cleanup.--Boffob (talk) 21:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no problem with this solution. It seems a global list of WWII aces seems more practical than a separate one for each country. Mosmof (talk) 23:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've done some cleanup work on List of World War II aces by country, and this could now be redirected back to that article. Mandsford (talk) 21:07, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Good work. Juzhong (talk) 19:42, 27 November 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. Stifle (talk) 19:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Morello discography

This article is only a copy of two discographies (Rage Against the Machine discography and Audioslave discography). Copy and paste without making any changes in its content is very easy and ridiculous. Canniba loki 14:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Tom Morello. Hairy Perry 14:54, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The main Tom Morello article is sufficiently long enough to sustain a spin-off article to reduce its size. It's not a copy, it's a subarticle. - 87.211.75.45 (talk) 17:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above anon comment is mine. I switched browsers, and the one I switched to didn't have me logged in.- Mgm|^(talk) 18:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems notable and Mac's logic is reasonable in regard to needing a separate article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It can be expanded as well. - Steve3849 ^talk 08:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete On Tom Morelo's article,("discography" section) can be included the names of the studio albums and then include the template {{main}} redirecting to the band's disco (both, Audioslave and RATM). I agree with Cannibaloki, this list is completely unnecessary. Rockk3r Spit it Out! 17:39, 27 November 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. Advert; NN; spam; recreation of previously deleted page seicer | talk | contribs 15:25, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nilachal Men's Hostel

I tagged this article for speedy deletion and thus it was deleted. The article was then re-created. Prodded by another user, and contested. So here, it is in AfD. I still think this article is valid for speedy deletion, per non-notable hotel, no sources and spammy. Dekisugi (talk) 13:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable hotel and verging on an advert. Paste (talk) 13:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as someone who 'prod'ded it already. Non-notable hotel. CultureDrone (talk) 13:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(By the way, the AfD link on the originating article is a redlink) CultureDrone (talk) 13:59, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No need for a whole article on this topic, the author should just add more detail to the Tezpur University page about it. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:02, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per CultureDrone. 212.247.11.156 (talk) 14:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above comments. Hairy Perry 15:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Otherwise, after Men's hostel, Ladies hostel, class rooms, and play grounds will follow. Salih (talk) 17:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (G11) — I respectfully disagree with the above; it's spam (at least judging from the wording and tone). MuZemike (talk) 17:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Deleted by Blueboy96 , NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:14, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see talk page for deletion rationale. Blueboy 96 19:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Budd Management

Non notable company, article created by subject and includes autobiography. Paste (talk) 13:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for not asserting notability. The quite blatant conflict of interest does not help and could (possibly) influence a veer towards speedying this... but unfortunately I think the way it's worded avoids that. one brave monkey 14:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:notability and WP:advertising. Hairy Perry 15:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (G11) — Spam-a-riffic!! MuZemike (talk) 17:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Author has now removed AfD template. Paste (talk) 16:28, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:advertising. JamesBurns (talk) 02:28, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would somebody kindly please explain what we need to do to not get this page deleted. We are very happy to follow the Wikipedia rules but are not sure what we are doing wrong? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephenbudd (talk • contribs) 15:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC) Thank you but what in particular have we done wrong, which part do we need to change? I have removed all opinions and added lots of references. However, there are not too many external quotes to use. But we are Europe's biggest record producer management company so I do believe we deserve to be on here. But please tell us what we need to change. I would be very grateful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephenbudd (talk • contribs) 15:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, despite the above protests there is no evidence of coverage in independent reliable sources. Nuttah (talk) 13:31, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

27th November 2009

Ok, I have made a number of additions to the references section, in fact I have added 8 taking the total of third party references to 10. That's 10 external references from sites not involved with SBM. What else do I need to do please to keep this page? Stephen Budd Management (talk) 16:49, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 05:37, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability from reliable sources. Obvious COI issues too. McWomble (talk) 07:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "References" consist largely of advertorials, self-published sources and insider industry journals. The article reeks of COI and self-promotion. WWGB (talk) 08:08, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adverts and self-published sources obviously aren't indepdent, but what's wrong with industry journals? Please remember, COI itself is not a valid reason for deletion. - Mgm|^(talk) 14:18, 29 November 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 verifiability and notablility established with sourcing, advertising and deadend concerns which made the article questionable addressed. Gnan garra 22:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Hotels

Tagged as advertising, deadend article is also tagged as needing cleanup, no sourcing. Gnan garra 13:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. —Gnan garra 02:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete recognising there is a claim in the lead of largest hotel chain in Israel, IMHO this is just a piece of poorly written advertising. Gnan garra 13:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete poorly wriiten advertisement, but still it is an advertisement and last time I checked those weren't allowed on Wikipedia, WP:Advertising. Hairy Perry 14:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (G11) — (Lots of spam today) Contains spam spam spam spam baked beans spam and spam. And this is taking into regard that cleanup is not a valid reason for deletion; however, CSD trumps that. MuZemike (talk) 17:26, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Largest hotel chain, and the list of hotels will indicate this, as it includes the major hotels in Israel,many of which probably do have articles. Primarily descriptive not promotional; and not even all that spammy. CSD does not trump general deletion policy, but is rather one part of it. . In any case CSD11 specifically says it is for articles that cannot be improved by editing. And saying spam 7 times is not more of an argument than saying it once. :) DGG (talk) 19:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability determined the usual way. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - not sure that the claim that this qualifies for G11 speedy is based on an understanding of what G11 is actually for. This article might be written like an advertizement, but this is not a reason to delete an article about a clearly notable topic. Only stylistic changes are needed to change the tone of this article, not a substantial rewrite. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 16:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Part of the nom's reasoning was the current state of the article (deadend/poor formatting), so I took the liberty of doing simple Wikification. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 16:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article needs a serious rewrite, but it is notable. I've just added some info and a ref. -- Nudve (talk) 17:46, 25 November 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 05:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James A. Donnelly

Is this podcaster notable, I'm not finding much to back that up? There are claims of awards with no references. Not finding any mention via Google News Search (though the common name and variations mentioned in the article makes this difficult). Based on the username, Donnelly appears to have created the article which has been tagged with COI, reference and peacock concerns for months. Rtphokie (talk) 12:54, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've found him mentioned in a book on video blogging but since it is a limited preview, I have no idea whether it is a list of notable bloggers or a contributor. Anyway, if his awards can be verified, he's definitely notable. I'll look further.- Mgm|^(talk) 13:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Some sources say he won Mad-Atlantic Emmy's other left the mid-atlantic part out, but all sources seem to parrot the person up for discussion here. The easiest way would be to ask for sources directly. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:11, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Article has been tagged for months with reference concerns. Could you add these references to the article instead of here?--Rtphokie (talk) 13:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)--Rtphokie (talk) 13:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's one claim done. The website for the Addy Awards makes no mention of him in any of its archives. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This source claims he won telly awards in 2005 while the article says 2006. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:24, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Mid Atlantic Emmy website makes no mention of him in it's archives either.--Rtphokie (talk) 13:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A google search of http://www.tellyawards.com pages doesn't find him either. I'm starting to think he got in that book based on faking his awards... Anyway, I'm going to look for the next award. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:24, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are no reliable sources. Everything is being copied from his official website. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could not find reliable sources the other sources are either copies from his official website or give no indication we're talking about the same person. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of verifiability for this person. Usually, COI, poorly written content, etc., are not valid reasons for deletion, but this is so poorly written in every aspect (down to the linkfarm at the bottom) that I would ignore the rules and demand a complete rewrite in the event this person was notable. MuZemike (talk) 17:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the lack of verifiable evidence that demonstrates notability of the subject. JBsupreme (talk) 18:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 25 November 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 05:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daitetsu Minase

This element of the Super Robot Wars series does not establish independent notability. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, this is just made up of unnecessary plot summary, game guide material, and original research. Relevant AfDs include Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Database (Super Robot Wars), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arado Balanga, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AS Soleares/AS Alegrías, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruach Ganeden, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thrudgelmir (Mecha) Magioladitis (talk) 12:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect As with the previous AFDs the nominator didn't explain why the articles can't simply be redirected (with anything salvageable being merged). - Mgm|^(talk) 12:32, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt - how many unsourced unnotable Super Robot Wars article must be brought to AfDs?--Boffob (talk) 14:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the same reason all other elements of Super Robot Wars were nominated and deleted. -- nips (talk) 14:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Original research and game guide stuff. Salting wouldn't make sense in this case as this is was deleted once before almost two years ago. MuZemike (talk) 17:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and WP:SALT per nom this is getting ridiculous. JBsupreme (talk) 18:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 19:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Manuel Ledesma

No notability, vanity bio? Oscarthecat (talk) 11:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete (A7) - Mgm|^(talk) 11:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, Speedy delete as vanity bio. Paste (talk) 13:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unverifiable Vanity and hence deserving of A7. MuZemike (talk) 17:37, 24 November 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. OR; advertisment; NN seicer | talk | contribs 15:25, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Business dna

No notability, appears to just advertise. Oscarthecat (talk) 11:02, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An idea by a single individual which has not received any sort of attention in reliable sources. Both the sources in the article are self-promotional. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:28, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Original research + self promotional + no reliable third party souces. Zero Kitsune (talk) 14:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (G11) — You-know-what. MuZemike (talk) 17:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking notability and promotional. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Perhaps speedy as suggested by MuZemike. Clear case of WP:VSCT. The person who created the article is connected with the company/project. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 03:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. G11! JBsupreme (talk) 06:36, 25 November 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 05:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Bin Thabit Al Kuwaity

No notability established. Part of a rich and royal family, but no notability established in his own right. Oscarthecat (talk) 10:59, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No sources found and therefore fails WP:BIO. Notability is not inherited nor does it come from being rich (unless ridiculously so). I only searched for English sources however, so if non-English sources are found, I will modify my vote. DARTH PANDA ^duel 13:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks reliable sources and doesnt meet required notability. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Heir to the throne. This is one of the circumstances where notability is intrinsically inherited, because that's how royal families work. It does absolutely need some documentation, if only to prove that fact. DGG (talk) 19:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article certainly doesn't make that clear, "relative to Al Nahyan ruling family.", "he was the heir to the throne,". If this can be cleared up, then as you say, notability will be clear. --Oscarthecat (talk) 20:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Notability established the usual way. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Indeed the claims in the article are notable, but there is no evidence for their veracity. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:24, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sources can be offered to establish notability "the usual way". He certainly is (and it seems unlikely that he was) not "heir to the throne" in the sub-national unit, Abu Dhabi, or the country, United Arab Emirates - in both cases that is Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed. There may be a transliteration issue here, but Google comes up with absolutely nothing when searching in the Latin alphabet, which, if the subject were notable, would be very unlikely. Also, if the subject is listening, I would advise him against calling his restaurant the Taj Mahal Palace - that sounds like the sort of establishment you find on every British high street where people go after pub closing time and dare each other to eat the hottest dish on the menu. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:45, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 19:33, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Bunch

Creating page for IP. Reason on talk page is:

This article has a number of errors and there are no sources cited for documentation. 64.105.104.28 (talk) 10:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I abstain. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — If this actually happened (the external links suggest that this is not a hoax), there shouldn't be much problem establishing notability of this person. Cleanup/lack of cited sources are not valid deletion arguments. MuZemike (talk) 17:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Move to Presidio mutiny~~ The latter is demonstrably notable (it got an article in Time, among other things), and the article in question is largely about that event, not about the person in question (which begins with his death). He is plainly not independently notable. Mangoe (talk) 18:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Whether to move or rename is a seperate issue, but it appears to be a notable event involving this person. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to Presidio of San Francisco. Redirect to Presidio mutiny. The person clearly fails WP:BLP1E. He was not involved in the said mutiny but an initiation to it. There are some evidences available for occurrence of Presidio 27 mutiny, which it seems was a part Presidio of San Francisco. Considering that there is no article on Presidio 27 and if there is consensus, then I think the said merger should be undertaken. In any case, I don't see the notability for a stand-alone article. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 01:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think a move to Presidio Mutiny would be better. Do you think the event is non-notable? ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is notable. It was covered in Time magazine, for one thing, and was made into a movie. Mangoe (talk) 03:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said above, the event is notable. But we don't have an article on it. And at least at the moment I'm not sure if this article can be qualified to be termed as the one about the mutiny. If current information is considered sufficient or expanded further, I'm okay with the move. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 03:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, well it sounds like we all agree an article on the event would be better, so do we create that article and revise our votes for a merge there or vote keep and wait until the AfD is over to make the move and do the editing? ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If someone is willing to undertake the task of creating a new article on Presidio mutiny, that would be a good development. The article, however, must stand the test of notability and be well sourced. Michael Bunch can then be redirected to this article. Otherwise, I think it should be deleted in its present state. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 15:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have completed said article; please take a look. ~~I think at this point we can safely redirect.~~ Mangoe (talk) 20:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The newly created article covers the event very well and this article can be redirected there. Great work Mangoe! ^LeaveSleaves _talk 20:21, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Having completed the article on the Presidio mutiny, I find that the article has the wrong name! It is Richard Bunch, not Michael. Mangoe (talk) 20:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In favor of the accurate and well done article on subject of mutiny, thanks Mangoe. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a great confusion. For a moment I thought there were two different persons, Michael Bunch and Richard Bunch. As it turns out, according to historical evidences [9], it was in fact Richard Bunch. But the documentary Sir! No Sir! says it was Michael Bunch [10]. Obviously, we rely on historical evidence. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 20:45, 25 November 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 Audible.com#Digital Rights Management. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 02:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Audible DRM

Thsi article appears to be an unintentional content fork from Audible.com. I redirected it, but the orginator has declared that redirect "spurious". Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:24, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and redirect to Audible.com#Digital Rights Management. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 18:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've initiated a discussion on the author's talk page to attempt to find out why he reverted the redirect in the first place. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 18:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect/delete no reason to separate this facet of the website off into its own article. Icewedge (talk) 06:42, 28 November 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) 00:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:53, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW's Public Sock (talk) 22:19, 3 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. MBisanz ^talk 08:05, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Dear! What Can the Matter Be?

Contested prod. Although the song may be well known, the article is nothing more than a copy of the lyrics. As far as I can tell, it does not meet general notability criteria, no references or sources are provided, and there is no indication of any encyclopedic content. WP:IINFO CultureDrone (talk) 09:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Well-sourced, notable subject matter. AFD is used to discuss whether articles are notable enough, not content issues. Content issues are handled at the article level. The article includes the lyrics in context as part of a discussion of the song's evolution, and the song predates 1923 so therefore the lyrics are completely fair game. I don't see an issue. 23skidoo (talk) 17:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep actually does contain more content than the nom. inaccurately claims, which people will clearly see if they view it. There are paragraphs of content, with refs, between versions of the song. Otherwise it could just be on wikisource, but it does contain more content so in this form does also belong here. For instance Early One Morning does have an article here, as do other songs, with content. Anyway, AfD is not for clean-up and the subject is notable regardless of the article's current form (which is fine anyway.) Sticky Parkin 18:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Traditional songs are notable, and additional material can be added. DGG (talk) 19:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep When I removed the deletion proposal, it wasn't an obvious keep, but should not have been deleted without discussion. The article has grown, and now it's a real keep. Fg2 (talk) 01:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep as a well-known traditional song. I was interested to see that this is yet another trans-Atlantic cultural difference - here in the UK only three old ladies were locked in the lavatory. I'll try to find a source for that so it can go in the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:15, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Well, it didn't take long to find some sources for "three old ladies"[11], but I don't have time to add them to the article at the moment. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:21, 26 November 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 08:05, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mckenzie Quotient

I've attempted to verify this in the hope that it is real, but can only conclude that it is original research or something made up one day. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unverifiable. I searched Google (web), LexisNexis (newspapers) and my local univerisity library (journals and books and scientific articles) and found exactly zilch. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources, no indication of notability. Edward321 (talk) 15:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable, not one Google hit besides own article, looks like a hoax. XLerate (talk) 20:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- as per above. no sources - SimonLyall (talk) 08:37, 25 November 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. c'est gone. StarM 04:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Charles j. willington

Pretty clear-cut WP:HOAX. Prod removed by anon. The backstory is somewhat clever, the spirit is definitely there, and parts of the linked LiveJournal are in the general direction of "amusing", but this ain't the Onion - not in terms of writing quality nor in terms of notability. Badger Drink (talk) 07:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not DeleteThe journal is real...It is one of my favorite weekly publications. I have several hard copies and am even more excited to find out that they have a website. Charles Willington is a genius! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.77.233.142 (talk) 04:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete The National Journal of Truth actually exists. I have physically read the hard copy. It is locally distributed and does not have a strong online presence, but it is definitely real. Also I have met Charles J. Willington in person. He exists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.204.78.74 (talk) 03:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete The National Journal of Truth does really exist and has been distributed at The University At Buffalo in New York for, at the very least, several years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.215.27.23 (talk) 03:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Probably not a hoax, but it is a non-notable person inventing hoaxes. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:55, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obvious, unfunny, non-notable hoax. Zetawoof_(ζ) 09:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:V and WP:BIO. Only relevant Ghit was a cached version of the LiveJournal blog. • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Likely not a hoax, but he fails bio policy. The "Journal of Truth" is simply a livejournal blog... _David ^WS _(contribs) 14:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Edward321 (talk) 15:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (G3) — Wikipedia is not the place to write stuff on stuff you make up. MuZemike (talk) 17:55, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO and WP:V, that hit is not relevant to this topic, because anybody can type those Live Blog entries, so this article is non-notable as well. Hairy Perry 18:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G3 does apply. JBsupreme (talk) 18:07, 24 November 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. Stifle (talk) 19:33, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jonestown conspiracy theory

Bizarre non nonsensical article, clearly pushes a ~~npov~~ POV agenda. The body of the text is using its basis for existing by telling readers to go read old newspaper headlines, The other articles on Jonestown massacre are well written, but this needs to go. Cloveious (talk) 07:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I altered your comment above, to what I assume you mean. A Neutral Point Of View is a good thing, you probably mean it's pushing one particular viewpoint. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:59, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree on the merits of the article. It's only purpose has been to serve as a repository for various wacky entries that some have attempted to enter into the other People Temple-related articles. Because of the magnitude of the event, much like 9-11, it attracted a lot of conspiracy theories. This was amplified by three other causes:

(1) Jones himself generated many conspiracy theories about the Temple's destruction for years before its final demise;

(2) For the last six months of its existence, Jones actually paid noted super conspiracy theorist Mark Lane (JFK, MLK conspiracies) to help him whip up more; and

(3) Because of some embarrassment regarding their relations with Jonestown, the Soviets came out with a book in the 1980s parroting many of Jones' theories.

While they've died down a lot, many conspiracy theory materials popped up in eighties from every author wanting to make a buck was peddling some conspiracy book or article in a wacky magazine. Some of it even made it into old crazy basic cable TV show blurbs.Mosedschurte (talk) 08:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect Mosedschurte's comments indicate that there's some notability behind the whole thing, but having its own article would give it undue weight. I recommend merging a much reduced version into the main article (if not there already). - Mgm|^(talk) 09:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing in the article worth merging. The only notable items are already in Jonestown. The conspiracy theories about Richard Dwyer (inconsequential figure) and the fact that the media reported death toll was lower the first few days (not at all notable) aren't notable for Jonestown.Mosedschurte (talk) 11:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep better as separate article, to promote NPOV in the main article. This is not a POV split--we've done the same for many such controversies if they are significant enough. DGG (talk) 20:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability established the usual way. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of the sources are to primary material supporting "discrepancies", and do not actually cover the conspiracy theory. Much of this article could be merged/moved to Jonestown Carnage: A CIA Crime, but I am not convinced that that book is notable. - Eldereft (cont.) 23:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete reliable sources about Jonestown Massacre do not indicate that this conspiracy theory exists. In order to establish the notability of a fringe theory, one must establish the existence of independent sources which acknowledge the existence of the fringe theory. I have not seen any forthcoming. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Here are some independent sources which acknowledge the existence of the fringe theory: CNN, San Francisco Chronicle, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Daily Telegraph, loads more from a Google News Archive search for Jonestown+cia. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:55, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a valid theory that should not be repressed. It is labelled as a conspiracy theory, not as fact, and there is a lot of evidence supporting the theory —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.100.224.105 (talk) 05:19, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is not a single shred of evidence supporting these theories. The only reason for keeping this article would be as a repository in which to shove all of the POV conspiracy material so it doesn't clutter the real articles on the subject.Mosedschurte (talk) 05:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't have to be any evidence supporting the theories as long as we are presenting them as conspiracy theories rather than as facts. The reason for keeping the article is that coverage in reliable mainstream sources shows that the theories are notable. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:43, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The theories can be included in the Jonestown article if they have any merit, which looks doubtful. --Fremte (talk) 19:00, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Again, the issue is not whether the theories have any merit, but whether they have received significant coverage in reliable sources such as the ones I listed above. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:04, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. No. "Merit" not being about the theories themselves, but meaning that they have sufficient references from reliable 3rd party sources, and even if, that it is more appropriate to put this info in the Jonestown article. --Fremte (talk) 20:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm now leaning this way. The theories themselves are unwaveringly silly, but -- like the moon landing and 9-11 conspiracy theories -- they've certainly received enough attention I suppose to be covered separately in their own article as their own phenomenon. Their development (literally starting in the 1960s with Jim Jones own pronouncements of conspiracies out to destroy them) is rather interesting.

If kept, I would work on the article, redesigning it chronologically and explaining the theories and their origins. The large subesctions would be (1) Theories pre-Jonestown; (2) Theories during Jonestown tragedy; and (3) Theories after Jonestown tragedy. Obviously, Jim Jones himself is the main actor for (1) and (2). The writings and speeches of U.S. grand daddy conspiracy theorist Mark Lane would, of course, be heavily included in (1) and (3) (Lane mostly just fled into the jungle during the tragedy). The trio of Soviet authors, John Judge, Jim Hougan, etc. would follow in (3). Mosedschurte (talk) 03:45, 29 November 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. Stifle (talk) 19:33, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lionel Dorling

This article does not appear to meet the notability criteria for a biographical entry on Wikipedia. The most notable aspect of this man are his military awards which, although not easily achieved or obtained, were not highly uncommon or rare to British Army officers around the time of the First World War. The article's creator also appears to be a relative of the subject, and was perhaps created as more of a "tribute" then anything. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:57, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think that last reason is relevant. They made a good attempt at referencing their edits in line with policy. The problem is that those edits never go any further than mentioning the guy in lists of award winners. There's no significant coverage of him. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for not verifying the subject's notability; I can't find sources that elevate the subject above other, similar combatants. However, I think that his notability may also depend on your own definition of "awards", and how military medals qualify as such (and which medals are notable).

As a complete aside... he does appear to have been photographed by Walter Stoneman, who also took a famous photo of Churchill amongst others. These photos are in the National Portrait Gallery, which may infer some level of notability, were it not that those are the only links that I can find regarding this. Thought I'd mention it though, as it piqued my interest. one brave monkey 11:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet the WP:MILHIST interpretation of the general biographical notability criteria, see WP:BIO and WP:MILMOS#Notability. David Underdown (talk) 12:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Companion of the Order of the Bath is notable--though not as much so as the higher ranks. The combination with companion of the Order of St Michael and St George is probably fairly rare. There are about 2000 of each--and I think many fewer at the time of these awards. DGG (talk) 20:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agree with DGG the combination of Order of the Bath and the Order of St Michael and St George is not that common, also note that the not meeting the MILHIST notability is not a problem as a lot of officers and soldiers listed in Wikipedia would probably not meet it either. MilborneOne (talk) 21:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agree with comments immediately above re decorations. Additionally as a Command Paymaster he would have been in command of a significant corps of men. Not a regiment granted, but certainly heading towards meeting MILHIST criteria for notability. RAF station commanding officers have been included for commandant less men in the past. It is not a bad little article and has more cites than many that go unquestioned. 21stCenturyGreenstuff (talk) 23:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to note, the awards of a Companion of the Order of the Bath and Companion of the Order of St Michael and St George together is not exactly rare, particularly during the First World War. Dozens, likely hundreds, of officers were awarded both for their actions during the First World War. I will add below a comment that was posted on this article's talk page by User:PalawanOz:

"I had a quick check of Category:Knights Grand Cross of the Order of the Bath, which has 697 people listed. In the "A's", there are 41 people. Of those 41, 12 (29%) also have an appointment in the Order of St Michael and St George. Now, I acknowledge that the GCB was often awarded to royalty (and hence they also received a lot of other Orders)... so, looking at the Category:Companions of the Order of the Bath, again, of the 33 "A's" listed out of a total of 643, 6 (18%) of them also had an appointment to the Order of St Michael and St George. I might add that many of them had appointments to higher Orders (of the Garter and Thistle in particular), as well as a sprinkling of DSOs."

I cannot see how it can be considered rare if 18% of just the 33 "A's" in that category also have the Order of St Michael and St George. If one was to search through the London Gazette anouncements of awards for the First World War, one would find a significant number have been awarded classes in both orders. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

very good to have some numbers--thanks. i wish people did this more often, but I think it back what i said more impressionistically-- this comes to about 400 people. I think the top 400 Briitsh officers and civil servants of this sort is about the right proportion to call them notable. If it were 50% not 18%, the combination wouldn't mean much. DGG (talk) 03:10, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I figured that supplying some figures would be able to help, which I was able to add thanks to the initive of User:PalawanOz. However, the facts that he was able to supply are only on people who have articles on Wikipedia, and this does not include the hundreds, even thousands, of other people who were recipients of these orders. For example, if you view the London Gazette reference for Dorling's CB you can see his name is listed among 55 people recieving the award for "services rendered in connection with Military Operations in the Field", a number of which also have the DSO and/or CMG. There is also the factor that these people could have (like Dorling) recieved the CMG or even DSO later in the war. He is also among 55 people recieving the CMG for "services rendered in connection with the War", once again a number of which have also been awarded the CB and/or DSO. Aside from his awards, the notability guidlines also specify that a secondary source has been published on the person in question; besides the London Gazette award anouncements and the photograph at the National Portrait Gallery, there is no other source I have been able to find on this man. Once again, I am forced to reiterate: I do not belive this man is notable enough for Wikipedia. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:30, 29 November 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 05:30, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Johnson (presenter)

fails WP:CREATIVE. Michellecrisp (talk) 06:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 06:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Phone-in quizzes are not considered real presenting jobs here in the Netherlands (the skill involved is usually non-existent) but that still leaves the performance of a well-known theme song and a music program to be evaluated. WHY do you think she doesn't meet the criteria? (Warning, this name is going to come back with a lot of false positives) - Mgm|^(talk) 09:11, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I tried to google her + things she's associated with, like Home and Away, but only came up with the TV studio profile. For example [12] [13]. Appears to lack independent reliable sources. Juzhong (talk) 22:24, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

... oh yeah, and a passing mention that she'd left The Music Jungle. http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/story/0,,23861225-5013560,00.html Juzhong (talk) 22:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment simply being a TV presenter is not necessarily notable especially as a a part time role in a phone in late night quiz...main thing is wide third party coverage. Michellecrisp (talk) 22:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability not established per guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While I don't feel any of her roles are notable enough to pass WP:N, it should be noted that she has had more than are mentioned in the article 1. What this source does not mention is what her roles were in these various productions, and without that information in a reliable source I have to say delete. FlyingToaster 07:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination Withdrawn (non-admin closure) DARTH PANDA ^duel 13:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zoho Office Suite

Article is blatant advertising. Article format (design) is a product brochure due to extensive use of subheadings detailing products and features using feature benefit and selling terms. Features and statements are unreferenced (delete as per WP:V). Examples of advertisement content includes "adds a few innovative twists", "it integrates well with other", "powerful drag & drop interface", "includes greater support", "a natural fit for the Web", etc. If content was reformatted with pictures it would be suitable for handing out as a brochure at a trade show where a dictionary article would not. Also delete as per WP:N for headings detailing non-notable offerings as headings are being used as notable destination links using misleading Zoho#SubHeading link syntax in other articles. 2 of the existing 3rd party references did not contain facts stated, 6 of the 9 references are self published, blogs or sponsored content.

Article has improved to a point it is no longer a sales brochure, although there are still outstanding concerns below, I am withdrawing the nomination. - DustyRain (talk) 04:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note DGG is now working on the article. I posted suggestions for improvements on DGG's talk page. When I nominated the article it was in this condition. - DustyRain (talk) 07:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some references from reliable sources on 23 November 2008 after DustyRain tagged the article for speedy deletion. I believe that this is notable software, and that concerns about the tone of the article are better addressed by editing than by deletion. -- Eastmain (talk) 17:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, it's improving. Would you be able to provide additional references for the unreferenced statements? - Otherwise I think the content needs to be reduced to ensure verifiability - DustyRain (talk) 18:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I just stumbled across it, never heard of it, but it appears at least a few major publications have. Appears to be sourced, even if it needs work. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 17:32, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but unfortunately some of the sources but do not contain relevant information they were used for. References must be relevant for verifiability. DustyRain (talk) 18:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Appears to be notable per the GNG, and the copyediting is currently being worked on. MuZemike (talk) 17:57, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is not being challenged, hopefully verification of the many facts are provided as that was the largest concern. Note recent editing has improved the article but content still contains bias selling phrases and at least 90% of the facts are still unreferenced. DustyRain (talk) 18:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Adequate 3rd party references for notability in the reviews. Based on what he said on my talk p., the nom seems to be under the impression that the article should be about the company, not the product; I can't think why. I havent checked the company to see if they have other products--if so, that would be an additional article. Routine facts about a product can come from its own web site--what I left is basically a mere description. Sure, we could say where exactly on the site the info is given, sentence by sentence or fact by fact, but why? For noncontroversial material, that's over-referencing. The article was spam in the usual ways, so, as I try to do for a major product, I removed the worst of the spam. . Contrary to what is stated in the nom, the title=Zoho_Office_Suite&action=history page history shows that I had already done the cleanup when the article was nominated for afd, True, it was nominated for speedy when in a bad condition. That was the second speedy. Eastmain, an uninvolved editor, had already declined one, and the nom put it back. That's contrary to deletion policy. It's also contrary to policy to delete articles that can be improved, and the nom seems to admit that even by his standards it could be kept if improved. DGG (talk) 19:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As I stated before, notability of this article was not challenged, it was the design format and concern about verifiable facts. Verification references are required for ALL articles. Personally I think information about the company would be good as well as company history (like most other business articles). There's still a few "marvellous" sales type phrases, personal viewpoint conclusion statements, incorrect facts (as noted in your article comments) that still need to be addressed. The primary point of verifying facts is that any joe blow can create a website and state anything and reference their own content. Wikipedia is not the place for such and this article was excessive stating promotional information without references as well as using valid notable references that did not reference the facts stated. Hopefully you or others will address the outstanding concerns and provide additional references. In regards to your comments regarding nomination, note the AFD process has worked well to force improvements to this article. - cheers - DustyRain (talk) 04:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- When I nominated the article it was in this condition. In summary, I think DGG has done well, it no longer looks like a sales brochure, there has been enough improvements for me to withdraw the nomination. DGG, well done, thank you for your efforts. - cheers - DustyRain (talk) 04:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep When articles look a bit too commercial, the answer is to edit them so they conform more to encyclopedic standards, not to delete them.--Filll (talk | wpc) 07:16, 25 November 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 05:30, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spiked Review of Books

AfDs for this article:

The mere fact that a magazine has a book review section does not seem notable. None of the sources discuss it, at most they just mention it in passing. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for going into indiscriminate detail. That's what website archives are for. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT. The article is an online index of the publication, an egregious violation of WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTWEBHOST. Third party references are trivial. • Gene93k (talk) 13:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything useful with the magazine article and Redirect as recommended in the previous AFD. 23skidoo (talk) 17:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Wikipedia is not your own webhost. MuZemike (talk) 18:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEBHOST (Wikipedia is not your own webhost). JBsupreme (talk) 18:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect. Why was the redirect reverted at first place? -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:04, 27 November 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 03:04, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Burgon Society

fails WP:ORG. almost no secondary coverage as indicated in Google news search. Michellecrisp (talk) 05:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added some references. -- Eastmain (talk) 05:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Added another reference (to an item on a BBC Radio 4 documentary). Coverage in Google News searches isn't a good enough criterion for deletion: for example, the London Mathematical Society currently only has one match, and I doubt anyone would seriously suggest deletion of that article. -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 08:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep is an active society. As above. No reason to delete. Couldn't quite believe this has been nominated for deletion. Oliver Keenan (talk) 14:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, an important and active learned society.Ncox (talk) 22:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to last 2 respondees. If you are so strong about keeping it, perhaps some reliable sources to back up your case? Michellecrisp (talk) 22:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's an active society with members in a number of different countries, which holds regular meetings and publishes a peer-refereed journal. It's devoted to a relatively obscure topic, yes, but that shouldn't make it any less deserving of inclusion. It's been featured in a BBC documentary, one of its council members has just been elected to the Society of Antiquaries of London (and the society is mentioned in the announcement here), it undertakes and encourages serious research, and has published a number of books on the subject of academic dress. Mere failure to appear in a Google News search isn't adequate grounds for deletion (lots of otherwise valid societies also don't show up) - can you provide a stronger rationale? -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 08:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nicholas said It's an active society with members in a number of different countries, which holds regular meetings and publishes a peer-refereed journal. That in itself does not satisfy WP:ORG. The availability of significant third party coverage is a better determinant of notability. Of course, if people find enough sources, then the outcome of this discussion will be obvious. Michellecrisp (talk) 22:42, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say the society does satisfy the criteria for noncommercial organisations in WP:ORG - its activities are international in scope, and its existence is verifiable by independent sources (including the BBC, the Society of Antiquaries of London, both well-respected significant sources; also one of the society's meetings was reported in a French newspaper a couple of years ago - I'll try to find a reference). The only argument for deletion presented thus far is a failure to show up in a Google News search - which isn't in itself enough, because lots of other established and valid organisations don't show up either. I recognise the importance of winnowing out articles on organisations with questionable relevance or verifiability, but this isn't one of those organisations. -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 08:24, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indonesian Veterinary Training Program

The program exists, but there's no evidence it's notable. StarM 04:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 04:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 04:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 04:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 04:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Google isn't god. Mgm|^(talk) 09:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment no it isn't, but it's a damn good possibility that if google doesn't show any discussion of an international partnership, including non reliable sources, that it isn't notable. Hell the org's own website barely mentions it. StarM 13:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree that Google isn't god, but for a nomination for deletion, it does indicate that the nominator did some research before nominating the article for deletion. Additionally, Google news, books, and scholar turn up nothing either. In other words, this program has no reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 10:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 19:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Somehow I managed to overlook the US mentioned here and figured that we should try to look in some Indonesian language. Obviously that line of thought is no longer relevant. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:02, 29 November 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. and a copyvio from one of those college weeklies. StarM 04:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Toy soldiers band

Bump up from A7 speedy. The only press coverage is from a college weekly, which is generally not enough to meet the notability guideline for bands. So delete. chaser - t 04:30, 24 November 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) per WP:SNOW...and Wendy better put some clothing on or she'll catch a cold! Ecoleetage (talk) 18:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wendy Williams (porn star)

I have nominated this article based on my reasoning at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kimberly Devine. Not a notable enough person for a Wikipedia article, and at worst, self-promotional. MartinShadow (talk) 04:27, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil (talk) 04:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:40, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:PORNBIO as she was nominated at least once for an AVN award. Tabercil (talk) 04:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PORNBIO. At least one verifiable AVN nomination.[14]. • Gene93k (talk) 04:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PORNBIO. You reasons for the AfD read like a cross between WP:IDONTLIKEIT & WP:OTHERSTUFF BTW. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 04:59, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above, probably a WP:SNOW keep at this stage. JBsupreme (talk) 08:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. AVN nomination satisfies WP:PORNBIO. 23skidoo (talk) 17:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep award history satisfies WP:PORNBIO. Recommend WP:SNOW Horrorshowj (talk) 09:55, 25 November 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 03:06, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vicki Richter

I have nominated this article based on my reasoning at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kimberly Devine. Not a notable enough person for a Wikipedia article, and at worst, self-promotional. MartinShadow (talk) 04:24, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil (talk) 04:32, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly meets the criteria of WP:PORNBIO by virtue of her AVN win. Tabercil (talk) 04:32, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tabercil. Can verifiably pass WP:PORNBIO. Any issues with the article are a matter of cleanup. • Gene93k (talk) 04:54, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
strong delete does not meet the general criteria for notability, no mentions I can see in WP:RS. [15][16]. She may have won an award but has no substantial coverage in reliable sources or outside the porn subculture. We are not an AVN/porn encyclopedia. Sticky Parkin 18:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

She meets the secondary criteria of WP:BIO. Secondary criteria are common sense exceptions. In this case, established media tends to shun porn stars, but they can still be of general interest at certain levels of achievement. That's the rationale behind WP:PORNBIO and AVN is considered a reliable enough source here. • Gene93k (talk) 21:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed... the criteria for notability under the "Any Biography" section clearly states "The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them." Vicki has won one AVN Award, and been nominated for at least one more (I'm still double-checking my archives of past nominations), and the AVN Award has been called the Oscar of the adult film industry. Tabercil (talk) 21:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep passes WP:Pornbio by such a wide margin that this nomination is laughable. All but 5 of the noms career edits are for a mass deletion campaign targeting transsexual porn stars. WP:NOTCENSORED Horrorshowj (talk) 09:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 19:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carmen Cruz

I have nominated this article based on my reasoning at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kimberly Devine. Not a notable enough person for a Wikipedia article, and at worst, self-promotional. MartinShadow (talk) 04:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 04:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil (talk) 04:24, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't appear to meet WP:PORNBIO. Tatarian (talk) 16:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not entirely sure this is "self promotional" but the lack of non-trivial coverage from reliable third parties says it all. JBsupreme (talk) 18:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails each of the following criteria quoted directly from WP:PORNBIO

"Has won or been a serious nominee for a well-known award, such as those listed in Category:Adult movie awards or Category:Film awards or from a major pornographic magazine, such as Penthouse, Playboy, or Playgirl, as well as their counterparts in other pornography genres.
Has made unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre, such as beginning a trend in pornography, or starring in an iconic, groundbreaking or blockbuster feature.
Has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media." Johnson8776 (talk) 06:03, 29 November 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 03:06, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eva Vortex

I have nominated this article based on my reasoning at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kimberly Devine. Not a notable enough person for a Wikipedia article, and at worst, self-promotional. MartinShadow (talk) 04:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 04:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 04:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil (talk) 04:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep, won Porn Artist of the Year 2007 at the UK Erotic Awards, and it's referenced. Meets WP:PORNBIO. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 04:54, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PORNBIO. The nom's rationale is partly WP:OTHERSTUFF. This article has nothing comparable to the issues with Kimberly Devine. • Gene93k (talk) 05:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Esradekan's reasoning. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the referenced awards are suitable enough I guess. JBsupreme (talk) 18:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
strong delete regardless of what porn followers recruited might turn up and say. No coverage in real WP:RS outside this subculture.[17][18] We are not an AVN/porn encyclopedia. Sticky Parkin 18:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep if the referenced award is notable--the site is independent, so its a 3rd party source. Whether the award is in fact notable is outside my ability to judge. DGG (talk) 20:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep award means subject passes WP:pornbio. Horrorshowj (talk) 09:45, 25 November 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. a9 El on ka 06:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I-5 Killers, Volume 2

2nd in a series of compilations from a n-n label with no evidence of notability. StarM 04:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 04:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A9, now tagged as such. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 04:56, 24 November 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 05:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sylvia Boots

I have nominated this article based on my reasoning at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kimberly Devine. Not a notable enough person for a Wikipedia article, and at worst, self-promotional. MartinShadow (talk) 04:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 04:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 04:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil (talk) 04:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 07:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. But, in fairness, I should note that there's another story for this living person. It's entirely derogatory. I deleted all reference to it because its sourcing wasn't even remotely proper. Please read the recent edit history of this article before deciding on this AfD. The way the page looks now, I can see why the nominator characterized it as possibly self-promotional. But looking at the stuff I've edited out will probably lead to a different conclusion. Far from being self-promotional, it was an unsourced attack page. David in DC (talk) 15:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed... the problem with what you pulled out is that there isn't a reliable source immediately locatable for the conviction. I can find blog and forum postings detailing what her real name is and the details behind the conviction, but no reliable source for the name. I can also find a reliable source ([19], which is ultimately tracks back to "The california lawyer directory") that spells out the results of an appeal to that original sentence. So given the one key missing link in the chain of information (reliable sourcing of the name) we can't use it. Tabercil (talk) 21:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I declined the speedy request on the grounds that what sourcing there was indicated that it wasn't just an attack page, but I was unable to find mainstream sourcing that would lead me to !vote the other way.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet WP:PORNBIO]. 16:40, 24 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tatarian (talk • contribs)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 25 November 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 02:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Lawrence

I have nominated this article based on my reasoning at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kimberly Devine. Not a notable enough person for a Wikipedia article, and at worst, self-promotional. MartinShadow (talk) 04:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 04:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 04:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil (talk) 04:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't appear to meet WP:PORNBIO. Tatarian (talk) 16:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 05:29, 29 November 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. Stifle (talk) 19:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deep voices

Non-notable band. Article claims that songs have charted in several different countries, but I have been unable to find evidence of that. No reliable sources provided outside of the interview listed, no in-depth independent coverage found. TN‑X-Man 19:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional references http://www.nickyzimmer.com/artists/03c1989b150dab602/index.html http://www.djmag.com/music/9030 http://www.trance.nu/v4/reviews/kyo-gil-la-ultima http://www.djshog.de/charts/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skillsdj (talk • contribs) 20:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Those sources aren't reliable and there's nothing that meets WP:MUSIC from what I see. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They have had releases on major labels in the electronic music genre. (Trance) I've added additional references for those. They have also recieved airplay (since 2005) on A state of trance Which is hosted by Armin Van Buuren. The archive of playlists can be found here. ASOT These are major accomplishments for this specific genre.

Sorry, I thought I put enough references there for them to be considered to be included on the site per WP:MUSIC.

--Skillsdj (talk) 01:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Just notable enough although the sources are pretty marginal. If you can find an article or two from a newspaper or magazine that would really help. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some from Dj/electronic music magazines:
Dj Mag review 1
Dj Mag review 2
Mixmag 'tune of the month' article copy - I can't seem to pull anything one from mixmag.net since most of their printed articles don't seem to be posted online so it might not be credible enough.

--Skillsdj (talk) 20:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't have to be online to cite (although it's nice if it is). You just have to provide all the relevant citation information about the article name, p. number, author, date, source etc. (if I left anything out). ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 05:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 05:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 08:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per ChildofMidnight based on all the new info that has been given since Ten Pound Hammer's comment. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, those sources don't have me convinced yet. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 15:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, StarM 04:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how Djmag.com is not a reliable source. I tried to find newspaper sources, but because the words are common, I'm having trouble whittling them down to something useful. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I have to agree with Hammer on this. JamesBurns (talk) 01:11, 28 November 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 05:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kimberly Devine

I know I don't edit Wikipedia much, but I spend hours reading articles here and when I found this one (and a couple of others like it) I started to read on some policy and decided that maybe it really doesn't belong, and I honestly don't think that it does. There are no sources, first of all, and then second of all, it looks like it was written by a fan. At worst, it's self-promotional. If I'm not mistaken, Wikipedia has several policies, including: no original research, notability, and verifiability. This article doesn't fall into line with any of them. Being a transsexual porn star shouldn't qualify as automatically being notable, and I've done searching and there's literally no mainstream press about this person. I've since found that Wikipedia has a lot of articles about porn stars, with most of them not being notable (and notability in this regard would require at least some mainstream press). I have no idea how to nominate multiple articles, because this isn't the only one that doesn't have any sources and has no notability, but maybe it's best for more experienced people to handle them. Wikipedia should at the very least maintain some level of standard for articles, otherwise anyone who has ever appeared in an adult video or who is an "exotic" entertainer could have an article just because they have some fans. After all, Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia intended to be the "sum of all human knowledge". In my opinion, a lot of these articles don't add to that mission, which is becoming more important day by day as the project grows as well as its readership. Wikipedia needs to be taken seriously. MartinShadow (talk) 04:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil (talk) 04:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 04:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 04:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (for now)... so how does your argument differ from WP:IDONTLIKEIT? Tabercil (talk) 04:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have to echo Tabercil. This really sounds like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The fact is there is WP:PORNBIO which spells out criteria under which articles on Porn Stars -- and WP:NOTCENSORED, so articles on porn stars are allowed -- are considered notable. I'm not commenting on whether or not this particular article (or any of the others nominated) meets PORNBIO or not; I do have to express concern over the nomination rationale. 23skidoo (talk) 07:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination differs from IDONTLIKEIT by citing 3 policies and telling us that some effort was made to find sources, but was unsuccessful (I like nominators who at least make an effort). If you try and look for reliable sources yourself I don't think you will find any (I didn't), but good luck. Delete if none are found. Juzhong (talk) 11:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I was responding in part to the nominator placing several additional porn articles in quick succession up for AFD -- articles that are verifiable. I placed it here as this is the initial AFD of the "set". The fact I have not chosen a keep or delete option should be evidence that I am undertaking exactly what you suggest. 23skidoo (talk) 17:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If you look past the nominator's commentary about why he/she doesn't think the article belongs, you will see the nominator also cites policies and indicates that research looking for reliable sources was done. This is more than many nominations on AfD have, and a detailed discussion of why the article lacks merit is certainly better than the many "delete per nom" or "keep per above" votes, and even the nominations that say "useless, delete" or "NN, Delete". The fact is the nominator cites policies in their nomination, and indicates that they attempted to establish notability. They should not be bitten when they are citing WP policies in their nomination. That said, the article fails the general notability guidelines, and also fails WP:PORNO. Theseeker4 (talk) 14:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete It is possible that her career is notable, but the article offers no evidence. DGG (talk) 02:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article does not establish notability of the subject. Tatarian (talk) 18:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, exactly as DGG lays out: she probably is notable, but there's no evidence. From what I can tell, her career predates when the major adult awards had specific transsexual award categories (e.g., AVN didn't add a Transsexual Performer of the Year category until 2004). Tabercil (talk) 22:50, 25 November 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 One Piece characters. This was brought here because a single person opposed a merge. That should be discussed on the talk page, not here. Mgm|^(talk) 09:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sanji

The article, about a fictional character, does not satisfy WP:N or WP:FICT. The only sources are non-independent. A merge discussion about several related characters was held at Talk:List of One Piece characters#Merge-in protagonists. The result of the discussion in case of this page was declared to be "merge into List of One Piece characters" and the merge executed. The result of the merge discussion was contested by Gune (talk · contribs). -- Goodraise (talk) 07:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Anime and manga. -- Goodraise (talk) 07:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reopen merge discussion - Not sure why you put this up as an AfD. This is obviously a merge discussion, not a delete discussion, so just reopen the merge discussion again at the talk page. Reading the talk page, there was really no consensus, since only there were only two participants. Not sure where this "4 day to improve article" deadline came from either, nor do I agree with it. I think what is needed here is patience for people to voice their oppinions. -- Highwind⁸₈⁸, the Fuko Master 07:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Most participants voiced their opinions in the "General" section a little bit further down. The discussion had stalled. Everything seemed to have been said, even though the discussion was advertised on the project's talk page. Also the deadline wasn't a deadline, merely a "Okay, this is how I summarize the discussion, if nobody disagrees by either speaking up or by improving the article, I'll take that as silent consent." Another reason why I put this up here is because I followed the example of a previous merge discussion that was contested. -- Goodraise (talk) 07:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Reopen merge discussion: It does seem like there was not too much participation in the earlier discussion, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't stand just because one person opposed it (with some very bad faith). As long as they don't cite policy reasons to revert the redirect, it can be reinstated without going through any hoops. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 03:35, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, StarM 04:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 19:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SimpleSAMLphp

Declined speedy for a PHP protocol. Not convinced of notability, most of what Google turned up was documentation from the software's producers and a review in someone's blog; no non-trivial, secondary sources. Google news turned up zero hits. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 05:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 10:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

simpleSAMLphp is being used for some big federations: as an example, the Danish University Federation (Wayf) is completely implemented with simpleSAMLphp. Unfortunately, the web page of WAYF (https://www.wayf.dk/) doesn't say their implemented solution was simpleSAMLphp, wven though I heard on the Terena conferences that is (although you could consider that biased, coming from a simpleSAMLphp's developer).

Anyway, I found an interesting source: http://www.projectliberty.org/liberty/news_events/iddy_awards the Liberty Alliance (a well-established name, I'd say) gave the IDDY award to UNNINET for the implementation of simpleSAMLphp. I guess that's a good external source! I'll add some more info to the wiki. Again, I am just trying to help here, because I noticed that this article didn't exist and I thought I could create at least a little one to help people. Blink0gmailcom (talk) 14:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nice job for finding that! Even if it is slightly biased, that is certainly a valid assertion of notability. If we can find a few more sources, I'll withdraw the AfD. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 14:54, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it is not slightly biased. Liberty Alliance is a well-established name, completely separated from Feide (who developed simpleSAMLphp), so I don't agree that it's biased. What I said was biased was the claim that Wayf was done with simpleSAMLphp, since it comes from the talk of a simpleSAMLphp's developer at the Terena conference. I'll try adding more sources later like you suggested, but at the moment I am a bit busy! Blink0gmailcom (talk) 09:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://saml.xml.org/wiki/saml-open-source-implementations

This page: https://www.wayf.dk/nyheder says: "UNINETT gets awards for simplesamlphp, the software that Wayf is based upon and participating in developing" in danish though.

https://spaces.internet2.edu/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=11484 - Fronter, one big e-learning platform is using simplesamlphp in hundres of installations.

A complete workshop held about simplesamlphp in australia: http://www.eresearch.edu.au/2008ws12

The danish government is reccomended simplesamlphp as one of three software packags to connect the national ID solution: http://www.softwareborsen.dk/projekter/softwarecenter/brugerstyring/oiosimplesamlphp and http://fugensolutions.com/danishgov.html

Nominated for European Identity Award 2008: http://www.kuppingercole.com/articles/eic_award_290408

simplesamlphp part of really large EU project GEANT: http://www.geant2.net/server/show/ConWebDoc.2879

Unique search string on google, gettings 1.5M hits: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=simplesamlphp&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq= —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andreassolberg (talk • contribs) 00:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the bust out Andreas :-) I was going to let you guys know I started your wiki entry, just so you would know and also so you could provide some more info, if you wanted. I just thought that simpleSAMLphp deserves a wiki entry ;-) When I have time I'll try integrating some of what you mentioned on the page, but I really don't have so much (you can say "any" actually) experience with editing wikipedia... Not that it's very hard, I can just copy the structure of some other entry, but still... Not quite sure what would be a good struct, maybe a "Prizes/Nominations" heading? I mean it's not common to have a wiki entry just listing the prizes and stuff, I guess some other info and that as a complement (and as good external sources Mr Senseless wants ;-). PS: Nice presentation at Terena Andreas! Blink0gmailcom (talk) 00:45, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, StarM 04:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete See wp: notability (by entering it into the search box) for wikipedia's guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:57, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & redirect to SAML 2.0. No independent notability for this implementation, but the article about the protocol is currently lacking any mentions of products implementing it. So, the contents of this article is a welcome addition there. The IDDY industry award (also mentioned in Network World) is not sufficient in my view for separate article; the other projects that won an IDDY award don't have a Wikipedia article, and are unlikely to get one either. Pcap ping 09:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 19:35, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indoor Gridiron Football League

Substantive enough that it's not an A7, but it failed to launch and apart froma minimal announcement of such, there's no evidence this proposed league with 2 teams is notable. StarM 03:55, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 03:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 03:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Two teams are not a league in any definition. Nate • (chatter) 05:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep while it's small, the league does appear to be established. I'm curious how many teams are required before a league would become notable... per WP:NOTBIGENOUGH. Yes, this one will likely remain a stub... but stubs are okay.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:02, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable. No sources are provided and the one apparantly available is this trivial mention. Nuttah (talk) 12:48, 28 November 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 14:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Imag091307

Contrary to a talk-page claim, there's no evidence this is a notable worm/virus. Ghits are limited to discussion of it, without any RS coverage to determine notability. StarM 03:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 03:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - again, wikipedia doesn't exist for the purpose of documenting every virus. - Richard Cavell (talk) 00:33, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Even if this exists, it's not prolific enough to be WP:N. DARTH PANDA ^duel 00:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A non-notable virus. Schuym1 (talk) 01:45, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I call hoax. This may be jsut an arbitrary filename, and the link in the article points out an IRC worm that doesn't appear to be relevant. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:39, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral comment. It does appear to be real but mainly restricted to China [20][21][22]. This makes it difficult to verify notability but we need to avoid systematic bias. McWomble (talk) 06:14, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable. Wikipedia is not an anti-virus guide. JohnCD (talk) 12:12, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No one said it was. Please focus your comment on the merits, or lack thereof in the article at hand. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 15:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per the snowball clause. Non-admin closure. MuZemike (talk) 02:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dental amalgam controversy

Not a real controversy. There are a few crazy weirdos and groups who have sponsored Zogby push polls and others who try to "drum up" the idea that a "controversy" exists, but in fact, none exists. There are no independent reliable sources which indicate that a dental amalgam controversy exists: only sources to obvious POV-sources such as "Mercury Watch" and autism pseudoscience groups. The material that is notable can be sourced in dental filling, but this article is essentially a WP:POVFORK. Please delete. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 03:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 03:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I went into this AfD expecting to apply WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE, but I was surprised. Sources like this one [23] pretty clearly indicate that the controversy is more than a crazy fringe theory. The article has perhaps some issues with neutrality of coverage, but is overall well sourced and documenting a notable phenomenon. gnfnrf (talk) 04:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As the article noted by Gnfnrf (dated 2007) states:
The FDA provided a “White Paper” for the Panel’s consideration that selected 34 studies out of many hundreds that fulfilled their criteria for inclusion. Following a careful review and discussion of the presentations and science, the Joint Panel voted 13-7 to reject the FDA’s conclusion that amalgam was safe. By the same voting margin, the Panel also concluded the paper did not objectively and clearly present the current state of knowledge about mercury exposure and health effects of dental amalgam. The Panel did not say amalgam was unsafe, only that its safety could not be established based upon the data provided.
A recent lawsuit has essentially forced the FDA to update their page on dental amalgam.[24] In any case, there is plenty of literature out there. The page is badly organized and doesn't even have nearly all of the sources that could be added, so it certainly would not fit within due weight within the dental amalgam page. In 1995 FASEB, a fairly respectable group, published a review entitled: "Mercury exposure from "silver" tooth fillings: emerging evidence questions a traditional dental paradigm."[25] Since Mutter's paper is in German, that source, though lacking in the newer information, provides an interesting freely available full-text overview for those interested. II | (t - c) 04:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. The claims ScienceApologist makes are blatantly false. Among other esteemed scientists, Alfred Stock, one of the greatest chemists of the last century, published about the pernicious effects these fillings can have. Among others, one of the top dentists at Walter Reed has urged that amalgam fillings be banned immediately. European dental societies do (tacitly) acknowledge that amalgam fillings can cause serious health problems in some people.--Alterrabe (talk) 08:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep The FDA investigated the the whole thing and concluded it was not safe, Scandinavian countries ban it, and yet the American Dental Association claims there's no health risks. Sounds like a existing controversy to me. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Good arguments are given by others above. MaxPont (talk) 14:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per everyone but the nominator. Edward321 (talk) 15:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but cover the controversy - WP is not the place to fight it out. Amalgam (dentistry) is long enough and the concerns have received enough mainstream coverage that a spinout article is indicated. The present article, however, is in serious violation of WP:NPOV and WP:MEDRS. - Eldereft (cont.) 16:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per everyone else, the controversy exists alright. JBsupreme (talk) 18:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Not only is there a strong case that amalgams pose a danger -- with two advanced industrialized nations banning the substance -- but to claim that no controversy even *exists* smacks of, in the words of the nominator, "drummed up" "crazy weirdo" POV. Madscribbler (talk) 10:36, 25 November 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 00:39, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Organisation for Free Software in Education and Teaching

KEEP: But change the name as "OFSET". Steven.Shiau (talk) 08:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.110.59.180 (talk) [reply]

KEEP: I suppose that changing the name of the page would help a lot: most of the people interacting with this organization name it "OFSET", and if referred in this way, it passes all the tests for non-deletion. Georges.khaznadar (talk) 08:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: I fail to understand why this article is being deleted? Does wikipedia lack space? This is a community based organisation, not interested in self promotion, with loosely affiliated chapters around the world. I will try to find supporting evidence over the next few days, and alert the broader OFSET community to improve the article. --Kattekrab (talk) 00:59, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Schuym1 (talk) 03:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While it does list some activities on its web site, this organization doesn't appear to have generated any independent coverage; the are some mentions of it on FSF's site, with which it is affiliated, but that's practically it. The fr wiki article is equally devoid of content. Pcap ping 08:59, 26 November 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, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 01:15, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. 14 hits in Google Scholar. It is a French org so there may be other references in French. McWomble (talk) 06:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 02:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The Google Scholar hits are catalog-type mentions, and most aren't in English, so we need some specifics as to what qualifies it for WP:CORP. Pcap ping 01:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - a non-trivial mention counts; a catalogue entry doesn't. Any language does as well as English. TerriersFan (talk) 05:11, 5 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 00:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete where's the third party coverage? Google news search shows nothing. Michellecrisp (talk) 03:02, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. None of the Google Scholar hits mentioned above are anything like third-party publications that establish notability. There's a report or two, there's a French document generated by the organization itself--in other words, nothing. Drmies (talk) 03:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't seem ready for an article yet. Maybe after it earns more mentions. Ancemy (talk) 22:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hi We are co-organizers of the RMLL http://rmll.info + one of our projects earned a Trophee du Libre in 2008 http://tropheesdulibre.com/DRBL.html + we do have members from many countries + we are one of the oldest organization in free software for education advocating + our projects do release regularly + you have to look for "OFSET", not the full name, as an example see this reference (there are more of course) http://www.expresscomputeronline.com/20031006/indiacomputes02.shtml also http://diariored.com/blog/ana/archivo/pda-152.html and there are more on Google News - Maybe the page should be renamed to OFSET ?.. About the fame inside France : http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Recherche?search=OFSET&fulltext=Rechercher —Preceding unsigned comment added by OdileB 07:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:N, WP:RS and WP:ORG. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:34, 13 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 snowball keep. the wub "?!" 22:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Byronic hero

This page is does not have many sources such as heroes who fit this quality type of hero, there have only been five or less articles on the subject.Also the term Byronic Hero is basically an ancient term of today's term anti-hero with similar concepts to today's type of anti-hero I ask you kindly to please consider my proposal of deleting this article. Tylerwade123 (talk) 04:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A notable concept; there are at least two books entirely about Byronic heroes. There might be some overlap between Byronic heroes other kinds of "flawed heroes", but that doesn't mean we should delete this entry entirely, since the exact term is commonly used in literary studies. Zagalejo^^^ 05:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's not the amount of sources that matter. It's how detailed they are and the quality. Zagalejo's research indicates there's plenty of material there to use. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As I understand it, "Hero" is in refference not to the character being a "good guy," but rather being a main character in gereral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.245.34 (talk) 06:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Actually, the article is well-sourced for its size. As Zagalejo shows, more sources could be added and it is not a duplicate of antihero. Several examples of Byronic heroes are given in the acticle, there is no need to turn it into an example farm. The nominator is also incorrect about the number of articles which link to this one,[26] though I suspect they should be checked for original research. Edward321 (talk) 16:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was made to study byronic heros way back in AP English, if it is good enough for that cirriculum, it should be good enough for WP. -Verdatum (talk) 21:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well established concept as shown by the references. I point at that older critical views not currently in vogue are still notable. Notability is permanent & thats one of the the basic premises behind any encyclopedia. DGG (talk) 02:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted as re-creation of a page that's apparently been deleted 4 times before: also spam, also minimal context (some of the previously deleted versions were in fact better), and, what the hell, no showing of importance either. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Auslogics Disk Defrag

AfDs for this article:

Article is a second attempt at advertising in vio of WP:SOAP after previous iteration of same article deleted in accord with AfD. Same issues remain: no apparent notability. No refs (and no suitable candidate refs, as it seems). This (or any other) software application could take on notability by dint of involvement with a significant event of some kind, but the odds are against it. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C02:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 03:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Wikipedia is not a directory of obscure software products. There are lots of computer applications out there; some are excellent and useful, but most are not notable. This one has little or no substantial coverage in reliable, independent sources so there's no reason it should be included in an encyclopedia. Reyk _YO! 04:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possible speedy delete, both as obvious spam and as a very brief article without context. The text only announces the existence of a defragmenter program, and "helpfully" supplies a link to the page where it can be downloaded. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G4. -Atmoz (talk) 17:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (G4/A7/G11) — take your pick, either recreation of deleted material, no context, or spam. Text your response now!!! MuZemike (talk) 18:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G4. JBsupreme (talk) 18:10, 24 November 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:23, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Eva

fails WP:CREATIVE. simply being a radio announcer is not notable enough. Limited coverage as per Google news search. Michellecrisp (talk) 02:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 03:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 03:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn per nom. An unremarkable career.--Sting Buzz Me... 03:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This article details a 22+ year in print journalism as well as the publication of three books written by the subject so he's not "simply" a radio announcer (not that there's anything wrong with that). Article needs sources for verification but subject should not be dismissed purely "per nom" in this case. - Dravecky (talk) 04:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

so are you wanting a keep or delete? Yes he has written books but I can't find evidence of The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors.. Michellecrisp (talk) 04:02, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Comment" is simply a reasonable statement of "I'm not sure I want to say either keep or delete". Nyttend (talk) 15:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Weak Keep haven't had time to go through these but he appears to be mentioned in several books which may help establish notability. StarM 04:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Most of those hits are for a different Bruce Eva. The books he co-wrote with the likes of Crackers Keenan (A North Melbourne footballer) etc are not exactly top sellers. Does every niche writer that ever published some minor coffee table book deserve an article here? The guy was just doing a job, and not so well because he was dumped. Or should I say contreversial [sic] sacking. Did he win any awards?--Sting Buzz Me... 04:26, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with above, WP:CREATIVE says the work must be significantly recognised. Simply publishing 3 books does not meet the criteria. Michellecrisp (talk) 04:28, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, weak and I hadn't had time to go through them. I think you've discounted your own nom statement. He's not "simply... a radio announcer." He did more than that. It still may not add up to notability but it's not as limited as you make it seem in the nom. I do agree that RS coverage of his radio work is a bit lacking. StarM 04:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Like in any discussion, new claims of notablity may be found. Yes I subsequently verified that he co-authored some books. Michellecrisp (talk) 05:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 22:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bajo la misma piel

A previously speedied article, removed by Deskana. Put back in a different format, but still totally un-noteworthy, no external links, no references, poorly written, effectively unencyclopedic in present condition. Thor Malmjursson (talk) 02:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AFD is WITHDRAWN - There is a Wikiproject on this Wikipedia relating specifically to all kinds of Soap Operas, which I believe a Telenovela would count as. I am going to pass this article to them for a full check over and to see if there is anything they can do with it. This follows discussion with other editors via IRC. I request any passing administrator to CLOSE this AfD as a Withdrawn/Kept. Thanks! Thor Malmjursson (talk) 22:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 03:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 03:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't throw around the term notability, just because an article is badly written. All of these can be remedied. References and external links can be looked up and the formatting and writing can be cleaned. How is the show not notable, specifically? - Mgm|^(talk) 09:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It isn't non-notable, I think that's why the nom is focusing on present condition. A two-second google returns these results specifically talking about the telenovela. In other words, it's a keep. And before it comes up, no, the sourcs don't need to be in English. StarM 13:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I didn't say ANYTHING about it being non-notable, I said it was un-noteworthy. As in, never heard of, and be honest, how many people are gonna search an English language encyclopedia for information about a Mexican show which is in Spanish and I suspect, has probably never aired outside Mexico? I am focusing partly on the condition, but essentially, I don't believe the story/show/telenovela warrants an article here. Thor Malmjursson (talk) 14:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BIAS, and did you see my link. Plenty are talking about it as I indicated in my link. English speakers who spent time in Mexico, saw it and want to know more? If it's in poor condition, fix it StarM 20:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think he's being biased at all. On the same token, it's not very likely that someone would come to an English Wikipedia for something that's all but known outside of Mexico, but it's still possible. We have plenty of articles sourced only to foriegn language sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:26, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Things that are notable in Mexico are notable enough for an encyclopedia, even if it seems unlikely that the English encyclopedia would be the resource people will check. If its high profile there, and meets our notability requirements for television shows, then the article should be cleaned up - not deleted. WP:NOT#PAPER I think is the link. Avruch^T 22:29, 24 November 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heather Sharfeddin

does not meet notability criteria. see WP:CREATIVE Dlabtot (talk) 02:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per [27] and notices in Publisher's Weekly. Minimally notable. JJL (talk) 02:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No one is disputing the fact that Heather Sharfeddin authored some books which are for sale on Amazon. However, that is not a valid notability criteria according to WP:CREATIVE. Dlabtot (talk) 15:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:33, 24 November 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, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW's Public Sock (talk) 22:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - Keep – ~~Regretfully~~ - Based on the fact that I did find some very glowing reviews on several of her books and a few in-depth interviews from reliable - creditable – 3rd party sources, as shown here [28]. Which, for me makes the author acceptable under notability inclusion for authors. Likewise, I hope that her next book, scheduled for 2009 will make the best sellers list and we will read about Ms. Sharfeddin, here on Wikipedia. Best of luck to her. ShoesssS ^Talk 23:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I followed your link, but I couldn't find the " in-depth interviews from reliable - creditable – 3rd party sources " that you refer to - no doubt my mistake. Perhaps you could help out and add them to the article. BTW, re your edit summary, this is not a vote. Dlabtot (talk) 01:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - The Capital Press interview and Reed Business Information piece are articles about the author, more so than the book. I know they are pay sites, so most editors do not have access. However, in the synopsis of the pieces, you can gather the tone of the article. Regarding vote versus opinion (in my edit summary), you are absolutely right and I misspoke. I give you full permission to Slap me with a wet trout. ShoesssS ^Talk 01:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I see some notability here, not much (per our guidelines), but some. The review suggests she's staking out new ground in a western themed genre, and she's had a couple of books. I lean towards keeping the author as I think it helps the encyclopedia. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:38, 3 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:24, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Robbins

I'm not sure about this one. First glance looks pretty notable, but on digging a little I'm not sure. Google news search found me 5 hits, 4 of which were mis-spellings of the footballer, but perhaps I'm not searching the right way (I used: ([29])) If he's notable, let's get the article properly referenced. But I do suspect he's not notable, hence this AfD. Dweller (talk) 11:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NB WP:COMP notified at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Computing#Mark_Robbins_at_AfD --Dweller (talk) 11:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Could not find any independent, reliable third party sources indicating notability. Lots of hits for random Mark Robbins's, but almost none are this Mark Robbins other than Wikipedia, Answers.com or the various associated companies he has worked for. If sources can be provided I would definately change to keep, but as it stands and with what I found, have to delete. Theseeker4 (talk) 13:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice. Reliable source addition would cause me to change my !vote--The assertions of notability are weeak, and sourcing is neither present nor easily locatable by the nom and previous commentator. Jclemens (talk) 18:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I first posted the original article since Mr. Robbins appears to meet the criteria as a Creative Professional. I have contacted him to ask about references and sources. He is retired now and has a large collection of print references to his work at the time. The companies he built and worked for have long since been merged and absorbed, and so their history is largely lost. Mr. Robbins' development work took place in the early and mid-80s, before the modern Internet, and that's why there are no references. It is problematical to scan and post some of the printed reviews and news of that day that he has in his collection. He hasn't figured out a good way to do that. Computing became a lot more fun and useful when the machines could be all connected together, and Mr. Robbins was a leading developer to that end in his day. That's why the article was posted. I hope a way can be figured out to add some of his print references so that verification can be more sure here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arrowcatcher (talk • contribs) 07:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's perfectly permissible to keep a copy of this article in your user space, and work to add references there--I'd recommend doing so before this AfD is scheduled to close. References don't have to be scanned and posted to be valid--If there's enough information for a reference that a good librarian can find a copy, it's fine in my book. Jclemens (talk) 07:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been updated with some external references, two of which mention Robbins by name. Also added a little more internal linking. There's been some pruning and minor cleanup. Mark has to dig to find the printed references in his ancient collection, but he initially provided these web links that might be helpful. Please see what you think. I looked through a sampling of other pages and saw that they indeed have a lot of print link references. Guess I haven't paid attention to that before. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arrowcatcher (talk • contribs) 22:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Significant content updates have been made to the article with more references added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arrowcatcher (talk • contribs) 16:49, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep After all the recent article updates, I gather I'm supposed to make this formal request. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arrowcatcher (talk • contribs) 19:33, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the avoidance of doubt, which of the references you've added include non-trivial mentions of Robbins in a reliable source? Perhaps I'm being harsh, but I couldn't find any. Happy for you to persuade me away from delete, but currently, you've not succeeded. --Dweller (talk) 10:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In summary as best I can tell - At the bottom line this is a biography of a businessman who is claimed to have a significant role in developing and marketing several technical products in the 1980s. At present dispute are not engineering principles nor the fact that the products existed, but that Mark Robbins played an important role in developing and marketing those products. In this instance, most likely third party sources would have to be print business and trade publications of the day. Technical product marketing such as in this case is a trailing ephemeral so the sources would likely need to be contemporary print. Most older technical products are not widely discussed for long. These specific products were significant in their day as they helped to democratize computer file sharing, so this article would appear to have some historical interest. In that sense, it would seem to be a shame to delete it pending some source research. We will need to find contemporary print business and trade references to Robbins' role in the development and marketing of the products ASAP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arrowcatcher (talk • contribs) 15:56, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. For articles to be kept, they need to fulfil WP:V. If he's not the subject of multiple, non trivial references in reliable sources, your opinion that he's important and it'd be a shame if the article were deleted, is interesting and noted, but not material to this discussion. You've improved the article no end, but sadly, not shown notability. --Dweller (talk) 17:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've read through the tutorials at this point. However, it turns out while the products Robbins created are novel, advanced for their time, technically influential, widely known, discussed and bought, Robbins is not directly notable as an individual stand-alone person apart from his technical creations. The creations are a literal extension of Robbins and in effect seem to speak for themselves given their widespread documented acceptance and review as significant technical developments. Magazines, editors, etc. widely wrote about the products but not so much their creator himself. In fact several of those product creations are described in Wikipedia articles, so that in itself naturally certifies notability of those technical works! - see internal linking. So to meet the notability requirement, all we evidently need to demonstrate is that Robbins himself was the one who actually developed and in some cases marketed the notable devices. This ostensibly should satisfy the notability requirement. The software and hardware devices as created, distributed, widely reviewed and bought - plus described in other Wikipedia articles - seem to conclusively define Mark Robbins' notability if he's their creator.

There could be a case of an artist whose works are very well known. The works are widely bought, reviewed and possess widely acknowledged fine design and influence. However, that individual artist person produces and markets the works from their workshop without so much personal wide connection to the outside world. That artist is notable by the recognized works they have created. The fact that those works are widely acknowledged, discussed, and reviewed as notable objects thereby makes that artist a notable person. Robbins' technical products are his works, just as with that artist. Thus you can easily Google all of Robbins' works but not the individual man himself. In order to be fair, I think that has to be kept in mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arrowcatcher (talk • contribs) 21:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite 02:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More references added to help substantiate Mark Robbins' connection to products and companies described in this article. Further references will be added. Mark Robbins' physical condition has tended to slow down the research unfortunately, but he'll get it done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arrowcatcher (talk • contribs) 15:32, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Current TODO in progress:

Another couple of specific references, which are on the way
Prune References list
Critically comb the article and again assure that the development roles as described are faithful to any documentation. An ongoing concern is if a contemporary co-worker or co-creator were to legitimately make an error claim. A true "credit hog" objection, say, would be unacceptable. There are serious online techie critics beyond the Wikipedia community itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arrowcatcher (talk • contribs) 21:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, seems to fail WP:BIO. Stifle (talk) 19:35, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 19:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Head Space

Non-notable "recently launched online contest" that essentially fails WP:WEB, due to low coverage, lack of WP:RS that demonstrate notability, and only two external links - to the official site + school site that fail WP:V along with WP:PSTS. If the subject does carry potential in notability, it can easily be merged here. Flewis^(talk) 13:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 03:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite 01:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This seems little more than an effort to advertise the subject contest, a violation of WP:SOAP. Even if appropriate sources beyond the contest site itself could be found, I think it would be difficult to make this topic conform to WP:N. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C02:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (and redirect) to be included in the university page, the fact needs to be verified (instead of fully independent notability being established). - Mgm|^(talk) 09:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 02:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non notable event. Nuttah (talk) 12:26, 28 November 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 05:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive Realism

Contested prod. Article describes a neologism. The only source is from the person who invented the term and I am unable to find any other reliable sources. TN‑X-Man 12:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The man who coined the term would be here. However, its utter lack of use elsewhere (only in four books in a Google Book Search). The only extensive coverage is based on the coining of this term, so therefore I would suggest a merge to Dave Hoffer. Unfortunately, since he doesn't have an article, this isn't a viable option, so I have no other option than to delete. This passes WP:V and has WP:RS, which is an issue brought up by the nom, but it fails WP:NEO. DARTH PANDA ^duel 14:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The term is used by reliable third party sources only when describing how the term was created. It is not widespread or in common use so it fails WP:NEO. Fails inclusion criteria for neologisms so must be deleted. Theseeker4 (talk) 16:12, 19 November 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 01:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Coined this year, not in common usage, not written about. WP:NEO all the way. gnfnrf (talk) 04:24, 24 November 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 05:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kensington & Chelsea Cricket Club

As per WP:CRIC, this is a non-notable local cricket team. The article has been recovered following prod deletion, since the club vice president sees it as an extension of their club website. bigissue (talk) 12:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article was restored since this is the standard procedure for contested prods. In its present form, I support deletion of the article. --Tone 12:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 03:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable cricket club. Johnlp (talk) 21:36, 20 November 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 01:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, possibly speedy A7. I don't even see an assertion of notability for the club. gnfnrf (talk) 04:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notability claimed or offered. Nuttah (talk) 12:22, 28 November 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 05:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Fine (radio)

fails WP:CREATIVE. Trivial third party coverage as shown in Google search. Michellecrisp (talk) 04:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 04:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 04:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article doesn't establish why this person belongs in Wikipedia (notability). ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources found indicating that WP:CREATIVE could be met. - Eldereft (cont.) 23:39, 24 November 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 05:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Hurst

AfDs for this article:

Questionable notability for this politician who was not elected to the office he sought. Raven1977 (talk) 04:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 04:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 04:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 04:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as some sort of campaign ad and promotional biography. Notability also not established. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retain/revise if needed to reduce emphasis on campaign. Notability outside the campaign was addressed in previous versions but deleted in response to comments to emphasize campaign more. Acham (talk) 22:50 26 November 2008 —Preceding undated comment was added at 03:51, 27 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:BIO/WP:POLITICIAN. This WP:ONEEVENT "biography" is basically a 2006 campaign summary. No RS attention outside of running for office. • Gene93k (talk) 04:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Without question: he's not done anything to make him notable, and there's no evidence of coverage. Nyttend (talk) 05:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet politician notability guidelines: subject has not held office, does not have significant press coverage relative to any other person running FlyingToaster 07:23, 26 November 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. MBisanz ^talk 14:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mu Sigma Phi (medical fraternity)

Self-sourced article on a fraternity. No evidence of significance. Guy (Help!) 00:43, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 04:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 04:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep The article says it was founded in 1933 and "is the first medical fraternity in the Philippines and in Asia". It also notes awards and honors recieved. And it also provides the indication of a source in the November 1933 Philippine Collegian. So notability is well established and efforts should be made to obtain this source and others for further information and better citations. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteFraternity at a single college. By precedent from ones in the US, they are never notable unless there is something unsually important, and eveythingreported here is routine. Trivial awards, essentially for being the best local fraternity in a particular year--but none of them are notable. It is not in any sense at all a national fraternity.DGG (talk) 03:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are several references in the article and I think recognition by the Presidential Commission for Urban Poor: "Most Active NGO Partner in Luzon", an award conferred by then President Fidel V. Ramos. And recognition as "Best Community Oriented Student Organization" in 2002. And "2007 Most Outstanding Student Organization in the University of the Philippines-Manila after also being bestowed the same honor the previous year" counts for something. The oldest medical fraternity in Asia? This absolutely belongs in the encyclopedia although the article could be improved.ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:22, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 05:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: not entirely self-sourced, secondary sources exist. --:Raphaelmak: [talk] [contribs] 06:41, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, referenced presidential award clearly shows notability. Huon (talk) 11:52, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One of the best known Medical Fraternities in the Philippines.Naraht (talk) 19:06, 1 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 19:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Tau Omega (Philippines)

Self-sourced article on a subsidiary organisation of a fraternity. No evidence of independent significance. Guy (Help!) 00:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 04:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 04:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Needs referencing and substantial clean-up. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Apparently a true national fraternity, with 28 chapters. Totally inadequate article, since i had to find out that central fact from their web site [30]. The discussion of whether they have a right to the name seems in particular need of some objective editing. DGG (talk) 04:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'll just provide some sources to prove ATO Philippines do exist and is a an official legal frat in the Philippines. User:TrueLicense909 (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 05:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I consider pretty much all fraternities to be non-notable and haven't seen a compelling reason why this one is different. Stifle (talk) 12:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. National Level Fraternity in the Philippines including chapters in all areas of the country.Naraht (talk) 14:37, 3 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. Secret ^account 18:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Sigma Phi in the Philippines

Self-sourced article on a subsidiary of a fraternity. No indication of independent significance. Guy (Help!) 00:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 04:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 04:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the article should be a disambig page, with separate articles for each of the organizations, since the four different organizations described herein are not linked to each other. My own personal feeling is that fraternities of the North American variety are inherently notable and deserve their own pages. However, the medical school one sounds more like a student club and may not be notable. - Richard Cavell (talk) 05:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What makes you think a "fraternaty of the North American variety is inherently notable"? From what I know, they're basically just like any other student club, and assuming those notable without making the reasoning for fraternaties worldwide is biased. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:15, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Needs referencing and improvement. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 05:27, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; I think fraternities are inherently non-notable and have seen no reason why this one is an exception. Stifle (talk) 12:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think fraternaties are as notable as any other club, in that without non-trivial coverage RSs they are not. No notability shown here.Yobmod (talk) 11:43, 4 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 05:27, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Auslogics BoostSpeed

This article is on a topic that may be non-notable. The article may exist primarily to advertise a particular product. The article has no sources other than the commercial website of the product being described. Richard Cavell (talk) 01:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I saw what you mean. I removed the advertising (the price and the fact it was shareware and that it had a trial) and replaced it with review information. If that is still too much advertising, I'll just do it the way the page for Auslogics Disk Defrag was created, by just saying what it does, if necessary. --Jesant13 (talk) 02:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You need to add references and citations showing why this company is notable. Search "wp: notability" and "wp: references" in the search box for more information. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then I suppose the Auslogics Disk Defrag article should be considered for deletion as well then, because THAT is what I based it on format-wise. --Jesant13 (talk) 16:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to submit that article for deletion. I haven't looked at it so I don't know if it's any good. But this article being discussed here needs to have citations to reputable references added to it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, needs to be improved, and added proper references. SF007 (talk) 18:58, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can somebody help me improve the page then? I'm not sure what to add, and I don't want to make the article worse by adding advertising. --Jesant13 (talk) 16:28, 20 November 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) 01:27, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks like a WP:SOAP vio with no real potential for notability. Big reference problems verge (at least) on WP:PSTS violation; one of the three references is nothing more than a download link (possibly in violation of WP:EL, and another is the software's official page. Perhaps if this software is ever involved with a significant event of some sort, it will be notable, but lacking that, no. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C02:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly non notable with only ~300k downloads. Maybe it could have a reference on another page, but it does not deserve its own.Mozzie (talk) 03:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, look. I created the article because I use the program and noticed it didn't have an article on Wikipedia. Personally, I believe someone should help me improve the article, it has potential. I can see your reasons for deletion, but I think it would be best if this article were improved with more information and third-party sources instead of just deleting it without giving it a chance. --Jesant13 (talk) 16:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ILIKEIT and WP:NOHARM are not valid reasons for keeping it. Michellecrisp (talk) 06:15, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete No real third party coverage.Google news search. Michellecrisp (talk) 06:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Their product page list a couple of mentions in the specialized press, but those magazines seem really obscure to me. Pcap ping 10:03, 26 November 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 05:27, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Official joints

Non-notable, unverified debut album. Fails WP:MUSIC CultureDrone (talk) 09:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 10:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NALBUMS. Ros0709 (talk) 16:06, 23 November 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) 01:26, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: notability not established, fails WP:MUSIC. JamesBurns (talk) 01:55, 28 November 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. Stifle (talk) 19:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Summers

No reliable sources, and doesn't pass the criteria at WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 10:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although she is verifiable I agree with the nom that she does not pass WP:PORNBIO. --Pmedema (talk) 20:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Raven1977 (talk) 03:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Popular Vivid girl in the 80s. She was one of the main subjects in a book about 80-90s porn.[31][32]. I remember Jamie Loves Jeff was considered a groundbreaking movie/blockbuster (criteria 2 of WP:PORNBIO) at the time since that was Jeff Stryker's crossover movie.[33][34][35] Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:27, 20 November 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) 01:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the information provided by Morbidthoughts; I would encourage the information cited be added to the article to address the unsourced concerns. If by chance this article is deleted consideration should be given to making it a redirect to Jaime Sommers as a reasonable search variation for the fictional character. 23skidoo (talk) 07:06, 24 November 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 02:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Premier cricket league

Non-notable amateur corporate cricket league. Jpeeling (talk) 10:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. --Jpeeling (talk) 10:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable cricket competition. Johnlp (talk) 21:37, 20 November 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) 01:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 05:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 02:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since no arguments have been put forward for deletion, I vote keep on the basis that the tournament is being televised: http://www.indiantelevision.com/headlines/y2k7/june/june252.php Juzhong (talk) 00:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 02:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep By deafault. Articles shouldn't keep getting re-listed until someone replies. If no interest is generated by the 2nd relisting, it should be closed as keep. Lugnuts (talk) 18:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability provided whatsoever. The argument above sounds a bit strange. The subject attracts little attention, so it should be kept? Hmmm. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 01:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know where wikipedia gets these people from. Being televised is "no evidence whatsoever"? Juzhong (talk) 01:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, only source provided is official website, which is not enough to establish notability. Andrew nixon (talk) 11:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If people can't read, I don't think their votes should be counted. Juzhong (talk) 11:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can read perfectly well thank you. There is only one reference in the article, and that's the official site. Or maybe I'm going a bit blind, so perhaps you could point out the third party reference in the article. Thanks in advance. Andrew nixon (talk) 11:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK like one of the three wise monkeys, you can read but you choose not to. I still don't think your vote should be counted. Juzhong (talk) 11:59, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked again and still can't see a reference beyond the official site. Please by all means either point a third party reference out to me, or add one, and I will be quite happy to change my vote. Andrew nixon (talk) 12:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This one: http://www.indiantelevision.com/headlines/y2k7/june/june252.php .On the other hand, if you felt that more than one 3rd party source was required, you might not be able to find anything but press releases. Juzhong (talk) 13:02, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a tenuous one, but if that was in the article, I'd be quite happy to change my vote. Andrew nixon (talk) 13:04, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Meh, I'm inclined to let this one go as I'm not sure there's anything else out there. Juzhong (talk) 08:57, 8 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 05:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Minu Barati

Is not notable according to Notability_(people).

Was deleted in German Wikipedia in April, since she is only wife of notable person but not notable itself (de:Wikipedia:Löschkandidaten/12. April 2008#Minu Barati (gelöscht)).

--Abe Lincoln (talk) 20:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:35, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article states she's a film producer too. Can you expand on why that is not being taken into account? - Mgm|^(talk) 13:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No search results found to establish independent notability. All mentions are as life partner of Joschka Fischer. No details on her involvement in films either. IMdB only lists her as cinematographer for a short film. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 17:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that is the reason why her article in the German WP was deleted. --Abe Lincoln (talk) 18:57, 19 November 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) 01:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability not established. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:01, 24 November 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. Stifle (talk) 19:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Archimedes Foundation

Non notable foundation with massive npov concerns. Written as a resume, the article presents no WP:RS other than an official site. No incoming links from other wiki articles, and the bullet-point style prose only seeks to promote rather than present factual encyclopedic information. Flewis^(talk) 13:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete possible speedy, written as spam, lots of hits from sites associated with the foundation, but none from independent, varifiable and significant sources. Fails notability guidelines. Theseeker4 (talk) 15:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per possible WP:NPOV and WP:V, but maybe it should wait since the noref-tag just was added and just delete the bulletpointlist? (The name is even used by Standford University since 1990 [36] [37].) Nsaa (talk) 19:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 03:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 03:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per these sources, and I'm sure that more sources would exist in Estonian than in English. POV concerns are reasons for editing, not deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:28, 20 November 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) 01:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies) and does not show significant coverage in secondary sources. The sources added by Phil Bridger include mentions of the Archimedes Foundation, but are not extensive in description. --Macrowiz (talk) 02:11, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, fulfills the notability criteria for Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Non-commercial_organizations, scope of the organization is national in scale and reasonable third party coverage given in this book [38]. Martintg (talk) 22:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I hope someone adds the mentioned sources, because the article could really use some references. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:24, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've already added a source. Martintg (talk) 00:59, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable enough. --Lambiam 19:31, 27 November 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. Snow has been plowed. StarM 04:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boybama

Current internet fad. No substantial coverage in third party, reliable sources. No evidence of "lasting and historical interest and impact" per WP:NOTNEWS. Contested PROD. SheepNotGoats (Talk) 20:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not one of the sources is reliable. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:08, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 04:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 04:00, 20 November 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) 01:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete None of the "References" are of any use, they simply link to other pages that embed the Boybama video. Agree with SheepNotGoats about WP:NOTNEWS. --Macrowiz (talk) 01:59, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Eek. This is the stuff WP:SOAP's and WP:N's nightmares are made of. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C03:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:SNOW anyone? --Numyht (talk) 16:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yes, WP:SNOW please. This is complete garbage. JBsupreme (talk) 18:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:SNOW. Fails every notability guideline we have. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 19:04, 24 November 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. Stifle (talk) 19:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Nalty

AfDs for this article:

Like the Nigahiga deletion, this guy has no notability outside YouTube and therefore, does not meet the WP:BIO guidelines. —Ceran ♦ (talk) 21:08, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Based on significant notability. Jason (talk) 03:29, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Ceran, obviously you didn't read this article at all, and you are just a self-important jerkoff. This is wikipedia. It's not an ACTUAL encyclopedia. I mean, Fred has a page, for God Sake! I see no reason why Nalts shouldn't have a page. it should stay, end of story. --Paultheairplane (talk) 21:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm sorry that you feel this way but I don't really think that he has baseline notability. —Ceran ♦ (talk) 02:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there are several sources in reliable publications (such as this one which isn't in the article), most of them are pretty trivial but they probably do include enough descriptive information about the subject to support a verifiable stub. If it's deemed there is not enough coverage to establish notability for an individual article a merge somewhere might be appropriate. The subject seems to be discussed in terms of general "new media" and new advertising techniques rather than specifically because they use YouTube. Guest9999 (talk) 00:05, 24 November 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) 01:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Neutral~~ Merge & Redirect - I only found one other independent source mentioning Nalty, but the sources on that page appear to check out. However, all the independent sources say very little about Nalty other than mere mentions; most of it is taken from primary sources written by Nalty himself. --Macrowiz (talk) 01:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: Mgm|^(talk)'s suggestion about merging to List of YouTube celebrities would be consistent with what is usually done with content such as this until there is enough info or reliable sources to make him notable. --Macrowiz (talk) 14:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Please note that the previous AFD listed appears to have been improperly formatted and not a proper AFD at all. 23skidoo (talk) 07:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The links in the references and external links section at the bottom of the article alone show he's been extensively interviewed in both online and regular media sources (which means he's received coverage by multiple reliable independendent sources per WP:N).
- If for some reason this is not kept, I support a merge or redirect to List of YouTube celebrities. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The links at the bottom are all trivial or non-reliable third party sources (youtube, self published, blogs, etc.) The Adweek reference mentions him in one sentence in passing (trivial mention) the Wall Street Journal article has a passing mention in an article about searching on youtube in general (very trivial) and the LA Times article also mentions him in passing in an article about product placement (trivial). No indication of notability, either through the general notability guidelines, or by WP:ENTERTAINER. Theseeker4 (talk) 15:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some, but not all, the references go beyond the scope of "passing mention." --Oakshade (talk) 06:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Based on significant notability. Can be merged after AfD if consensus is reached. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The references do indicate passing WP:BIO. Some people might not like the fact people can be notable because of youtube, but that has nothing to do with Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines. --Oakshade (talk) 06:24, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Nalts is not only one of the most Stable and Popular Partners on YouTube he has a very active blog that receives thousands of hits each day. He has been a guest on ABC, FOX, CBS, NBC; both national and local. His opinion is sought from many Important and Popular Newspapers and Blogs. He has created commercials for Mentos, Readers Digest and other well known US products, all of this revolves around his background in the Marketing Industry and his extreme popularity on You Tube. Further, the wiki guidelines use the word notability: a person or celebrity who is an inspiration to others. Kevin Nalty fills that description; see all the videos of thanks for his inspiration and collaboration he has been asked to participated by many well known internet, political and MSM personalities. Nalts has had an important hand in helping sharp the past and present popularity of You Tube, Revver and the Marketing Industry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jischinger (talk • contribs) 18:54, 29 November 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 Sally Spectra. Stifle (talk) 19:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spectra Fashions

No real world information, references, media coverage, no notability outside the show. Magioladitis (talk) 00:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or weak merge Non-notable and lacks sources. Weak merge with either Sally Spectra or Locations in the Bold and the Beautiful. --Macrowiz (talk) 01:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Sally Spectra. The nominator's reasoning does not explain why this information should not be included in an article relevant to the show in which it is notable. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Sally Spectra. An organization in a fictional story, not notable enough to have an article of its own. If this information is needed, it can be included in the article on its owner. Chamal ^talk 12:38, 24 November 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 08:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Locations in the Bold and the Beautiful

No real world information, references, media coverage, no notability outside the show. Not even a real information about the locations in the B&B, just some lists of names and addresses. (Btw, the use of word "former" is against the way the things should be written according to WP:FICTION, but this is the least). Magioladitis (talk) 00:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - No actual content, and it's listcruft. Perhaps merge to main article, but it shouldn't be used on its own. _David ^WS _(contribs) 01:02, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable and includes no sources. Suggest author submits this to [39] instead. --Macrowiz (talk) 01:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No need to keep an article for this, it's clearly non-notable and unsourced. I don't think anybody would be interested in finding out locations in a TV series (unless it's some hardcore fan). Anyway, Wikipedia is not a collection of facts to keep articles like this. Chamal ^talk 12:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is more geared towards Wikia Soaps but, LOL, not here. JBsupreme (talk) 18:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cant see what useful information this gives. DGG (talk) 09:39, 25 November 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. Macrowiz (talk) 03:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Small Crew Productions

Questionably notable production company. I was unable to turn up any third-party sources in the usual fashion. This article was prodded by another editor, but, while I agree it should be deleted, I am uncertain enough about it that I thought I would take it to AfD. Delete. Horselover Frost (talk) 05:58, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 10:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 10:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no 3rd party sources; no notable films; nothing to show notability of said company Skier Dude (talk) 20:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, kur ykh 00:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No demonstrated notability. Qqqqqq (talk) 00:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Clearly spam. --Macrowiz (talk) 01:28, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, speedy SPAM. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
G11 added --Macrowiz (talk) 03:01, 24 November 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. Stifle (talk) 19:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Mineo

No indication of notability under which the subject would pass Wikipedia:Notability (people). siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 00:32, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails notability for artists. --Macrowiz (talk) 00:59, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. per WP:CREATIVE: "The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, or had works in many significant libraries." I would claim that the NYTimes is significant critical attention. There are also many relevant ghits. Billscottbob (talk) 02:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - coverage by the NYTimes here sounds significant enough.--Boffob (talk) 14:31, 24 November 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. Original research; singular source does not verify article seicer | talk | contribs 15:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Millennial era

This page appears to be nothing but original research. The one source listed (which currently needs to be retrieved manually from the editing window) has does not even feature the word "millenial" or "era", or anything related to this article. Unschool (talk) 00:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did a search on the internet. It appears that the term is quite loosely defined. Often it is used to refer to the periosd after the millenium while the article refers to the period leading up to the millenium. I suspect the content of this page is probably more opinion than fact.Mozzie (talk) 00:32, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - All original research and no links to sources. This user has a history of creating articles that were later deleted. May qualify for A7. --Macrowiz (talk) 00:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just as an aside, I don't think the creator's past history of article creation should be a factor here. Each article should be judged on its own. We should not label editors, with the policy-driven exception of vandals, lest we succumb to Becker's dilemma.Unschool (talk) 03:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Original research; reads like a personal essay and contains nothing factual not found elsewhere on Wikipedia. Qqqqqq (talk) 00:54, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, an ambiguous and ill-defined term, where the interpretation given is not supported by reliable sources. Reads like an WP:OR essay. Nsk92 (talk) 04:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article never defines what the "millennial era" is (1990-1999? 2000-2009? something else entirely?), and the focus on trends in popular music is just plain bizarre. We already have a bunch of articles on "2000 in X" and "X in the 2000s" (for example, 2000 in music and Music in the 2000s). While there's potential (given extensive SECONDARY sources) for an article on the cultural phenomenon of the third millennium (consider the prevalence of "in the year 2000" predictions in the late 20th century, for example), this article isn't it. It's not even close. Zetawoof_(ζ) 05:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I concur with the OR concerns. There's no indication that a "Milennial era" has been formally defined in any way; it's just the 1990s and the 2000s. That's not to say such a term might not be coined in the future (though more likely it'll be something like "Pre-9/11 Era") but right now there's nothing to support what's here. 23skidoo (talk) 07:11, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this sort of article (especially) needs sources; otherwise, it shouldn't stay. -- Biruitorul ^Talk 17:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unsourced, original research. Edward321 (talk) 23:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re-opened reverted my close and restored at the request of DGG, whose input I request. StarM 13:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per SNOW. Research exists on the Milennial Era, and what's sourced is in and could potenitally be added to articles such as Generation Y. This is pure OR unencyclopedic essay. It could be said Millennial fever still exists in the 2000s decade as people still call the current year "two thousand eight" and not "twenty oh eight". StarM 13:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Although I used to take sympathy for articles of this nature. I do believe that it must be sourced. (Tigerghost (talk) 15:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Speedy delete as (approximate) recreation of previously deleted article by the same person. Still unsourced, still no source for the name of the article presented (although I'm perfectly willing to believe that a source exists for different time periods.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete It is at the moment an essay; however, we have a variety of articles on generations and the like and, if the term is in fact used, & I think it is, there ought to be a possible redirect. I'll take a look. I asked for a day to two to do it. I don't thing there would be the least difficulty finding sources to support each of the statements, but the question is whether its worth looking. DGG (talk) 19:18, 25 November 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. As always, there's no problem with launching a merge discussion on the article talk page. Stifle (talk) 19:37, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wendell Craig Williams

Failed 2008 candidate for Congress. Might have lots of election-related coverage, but fails notability requirements under WP:POLITICIAN. HoboJones (talk) 06:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - failed candidate which does not pass WP:POLITICIAN and does not have significant reliable coverage outside the elections by independent sources to pass the general notability guidelines.--Boffob (talk) 14:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in Pennsylvania, 2008#District 7 as with other non notable candidates. This article was redirected prior to editor's creation.TastyPoutine ^{talk (if you dare) _]} 01:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. —HoboJones (talk) 06:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —HoboJones (talk) 06:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep election related coverage is all that's necessary. We have in the past not covered defeated candidates because we usually couldnt find the coverage. Now that we can, the GNG applies, and it shows him notable. DGG (talk) 09:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : that contradicts WP:POLITICIAN, any candidate from a major party in any election anywhere will have local coverage during that election, no matter what. Those who don't get elected usually have no accomplishments of significance to pass WP:N, and Wikipedia is not news, thus being in the papers during the election is not sufficient. Failed candidates also often fall within WP:BLP1E.--Boffob (talk) 14:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Major party candidate for national elected office in a protracted campaign. These are, or should be, notable, and recent AfDs have definitely been trending that way. There is always coverage for such things, and they almost always go beyond trivial coverage about electoral positions to serious coverage of a person's career and prior accomplishments (not always the case for lower level offices). RayAYang (talk) 23:56, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete/Merge into United States House of Representatives elections in Pennsylvania, 2008: losing an election does not automatically make one notable. I'm not convinced he's had sufficient coverage from reliable, third-party sources to pass the notability test; particularly suspect is the fact that he doesn't seem to have received any attention outside of the election coverage, which suggests that he isn't really notable in his own right. There is the endorsement from The Bulletin (newspaper) - but most newspapers endorse plenty of candidates each election, many of whom will lose, and does that make them all notable? Terraxos (talk) 16:18, 29 November 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.

@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
 __TOC__
 <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bruce macintosh}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yesterdays (band)}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Recoome}}