Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 September 13

< September 12	September 14 >

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 merge to Goofy. Odd, there appears to be a bug in the closing script; my reasoning didn't get posted originally. Anyway, there is no consensus to delete the article, however there also does not appear to be a consensus to overrule the previous AfD's closure. It seems that the merger tag was removed when nothing had been done to undertake the merge and it wasn't apparent that this was an AfD decision ([1]). Therefore, I am sustaining the old closure, and making it clear that the article is to be merged within one month or it may be deleted. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Goofy holler

Article about a non-notable sound effect, used in a few dozen Disney movies and hardly at all outside the Waltpire. Few reliable sources. There have been plenty of stock sound effects used throughout the years - this one is hardly the Wilhelm scream, or even Castle thunder for that matter. Previous AfD closed as merge, unsure exactly why this was undone. Action Jackson IV (talk) 20:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Kizor's rationale in the first AfD. I'm pretty much in agreement with him. JuJube (talk) 22:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Ok, this is basically WP:original research, then again, the subject is not academic material. Somewhat culturally notable, not ephemeral, article is entirely non controversial, content is more than a stub, and we have no trees to save here. Equendil Talk 23:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Goofy. Apparently, this is something that was sometimes heard when Goofy cartoons were made in the 1940s and 50s. Though there's some indication that YAAAhoohoohooey has sometimes been repeated in later Disney cartoons, nothing to indicate that this ever caught on as a catchphrase outside of wonderful world of Disney; or inside it, for that matter. Even Yabba dabba doo is just a redirect to Fred Flintstone. Mandsford (talk) 01:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per the previous AFD. The article contains no sources to suggest it has achieved the notability of the Wilhelm. It's definitely notable and worth referencing in the context of the article on the character, and/or an article on stock sound effects, but I don't see independent notability and I don't see anything to suggest the previous AFD decision should be overruled. 23skidoo (talk) 05:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If this list is even merged, Wikipedia risks losing precious data about this sound effect. --Ryanasaurus007 (talk) 13:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Action Jackson IV (talk) 18:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing is ever really lost in a merger, unless it's merged to an article that is later deleted. And the article about Goofy is not likely to ever be deleted. Mandsford (talk) 14:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wholly WP:OR. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 20:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Goofy is notable. So is his "voice".(69.231.39.97 (talk) 20:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 02:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agent K

This character does not assert notability outside the films and cartoon series. It is unlikely that any third party sources will ever talk about it outside of the context of the series, so it has no reason to exist. TTN (talk) 19:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ~~Men in Black (comics)~~Men in Black (film) as it doesn't satisfy notability, as it doesn't provide any real-world info. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 20:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - we have in-world articles about characters in novels, so why not have an article about a main character in a large film franchise? Intothewoods29 (talk) 23:54, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Provides (minimal) real-world context as suggested by WP:FICTION. --Canley (talk) 00:32, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Magioladitis (talk) 00:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Lead characters in fiction franchises are notable. In this case this is a character who led two major motion pictures and a highly regarded television series. 23skidoo (talk) 05:30, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Delete and) redirect to Men in Black (film). Violates WP:NOT#PLOT in its purest form and is not needed as a spinout at this time (plot is already summarized in the film articles). Would be okay as a search term though. – sgeureka ^t•c
Keep He's one of the two major characters in the major fictional series. All reviews should provide some discussion of his role. Principal characters in major fiction are notable. DGG (talk) 20:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per DGG. Edward321 (talk) 04:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree that the character is notable. There is plenty of coverage of the character in reliable secondary sources. Men in Black (film) has spawned a TV series, novels, a sequel, and a video game. Because of the bounty of popularity and spin-offs, there is a "likelihood of expansion," and because of the secondary sources, I don't believe the article "requires excessive plot detail and in-universe information" (per WP:FICTION). --ColorOfSuffering (talk) 09:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 02:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frank the Pug

This character does not assert notability outside the films and cartoon series. It is unlikely that any third party sources will ever talk about it outside of the context of the series, so it has no reason to exist. TTN (talk) 19:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my comment in Agent K AfD. Intothewoods29 (talk) 23:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Provides (minimal) real-world context as suggested by WP:FICTION. --Canley (talk) 00:32, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article actually gets quite a lot of Google book hits and thus should be kept. --Elisabeth Rogan (talk) 06:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Men in Black (film). The lead and the Animal actor section (although unsourced) may be something for the film article, the rest puts WP:UNDUE weight on plot (WP:NOT#PLOT) and doesn't qualify for a spinout (yet). Would be okay as a search term though.
Seems to be worth a weak keep. Stifle (talk) 16:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I wouldn't have been at all sure, except for the references presented here. But if Stifle thinks an article of this nature notable enough for a weak keep, how can I argue otherwise? DGG (talk) 20:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One of the better-remembered characters in a pair of blockbuster films (and somewhat lesser-known TV show). Press coverage does indeed exist, such as this jokey USA-Today interview. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on Starblind's link. Independant sources do exist. Edward321 (talk) 05:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ff m 12:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agent J

This character does not assert notability outside the films and cartoon series. It is unlikely that any third party sources will ever talk about it outside of the context of the series, so it has no reason to exist. TTN (talk) 19:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Men in Black (film) as it doesn't pass notability criterion as it stands. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 20:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he's the main character in a popular series. JuJube (talk) 22:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my comment in Agent K AfD. Intothewoods29 (talk) 23:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Provides (minimal) real-world context as suggested by WP:FICTION. --Canley (talk) 00:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Magioladitis (talk) 00:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep as a main character I think they are ways to improve this article. I didn't do any research but I think someone can find real world information somewhere and add it. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the same reason I gave for the Agent K article. Lead characters in fiction franchises are notable. Two major motion pictures and a television series syndicated worldwide constitutes a franchise and J was a lead character in all three. 23skidoo (talk) 05:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither WP:NOTABILITY nor WP:FICT say that "Lead characters in fiction franchises are notable", so I assume this is your personal opinion. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Delete and) redirect to Men in Black (film). Violates WP:NOT#PLOT in its purest form and is not needed as a spinout at this time (plot is already summarized in the film articles). Would be okay as a search term though. – sgeureka ^t•c
Keep As above, one of the principal characters in a major fiction, will be covered in sources--if even Pug is, he surely will be--, and presumed to be notable as are all major characters in works as important as this.DGG (talk) 20:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per DGG. Edward321 (talk) 05:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 13:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CS1000

Article, with advert like features removed, is a mere one line article on a patched IP PBX with no assertions of notability. SGGH ^speak! 18:30, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too little context and it isn't much (if anything) more than a bare dictionary description. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ErikTheBikeMan (talk • contribs) 19:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all the above-stated reasons, and the fact that it's just confusing. BobAmnertiopsis ∴_ChatMe! 22:05, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Equendil Talk 08:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Infinite monkey theorem. MBisanz ^talk 02:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One Million Monkeys Typing

Ad-style self-promoting nn web article. BobAmnertiopsis ∴_ChatMe! 18:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Advertising. Redirect title to Infinite monkey theorem. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 18:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It could possibly be kept with major cleanup. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 19:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's an idea...what cleanup do you think it would entail? I wouldn't like to see this article go down the poop-chute, but as it stands now, it's headed that way. 67.220.16.64 (talk) 22:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC) Sorry...forgot to log in. Actually from BobAmnertiopsis ∴_ChatMe! 22:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect to Infinite monkey theorem. Fails CSD A7. Equendil Talk 23:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Infinite monkey theorem--Matilda ^talk 00:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Close (non-admin closure) — The first AfD nomination is still open. Please discuss the AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walter J. West, which has been relisted the same day as this. MuZemike (talk) 23:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Walter J. West

"The College Football wikiproject consensus is that college football head coaches are notable". You can see the discussion about this on the article talk page. Basically, I disagree with this blanket notability agreed upon by this Wikiproject, which is in direct disagreement with WP:BIO / WP:NOTE. There is no indication that there are multiple reliable independent sources about this person. He has coached this college team, that is not disputed, but that's about all there is to say about him. His run as a coach seems to have been unremarkable, and there are no other facts which would make him notable. While he does meet the notability essay of the College Football project, this essay is so far remote from WP:NOTE, WP:BIO and even WP:ATHLETE as to make it not supported by global consensus, but only by a very local one. Kittybrewster ☎ 18:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It there a reason why this is here while the first nomination is still open? MuZemike (talk) 23:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep Ron's sources are good enough for me. I might as well withdraw, or this'll keep getting relisted until the end of time. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Entertainer (DVD)

Unsourced DVD package. No reliable sources found, just PR sources from Walmart regarding the DVD's release and trivial mentions. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 03:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found mentions in the Los Angeles Times (fee-based access required) [2], the Kansas City Star (also fee-based) [3] and mention in Billboard. [4]. The article needs better sourcing, but notability is confirmable. Ecoleetage (talk) 13:54, 17 September 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) 00:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedied as blatant hoax and possible attack page. Grutness...wha? 00:59, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jiffwich

Unfortunately, I had some trouble verifying the references. For example, there is not entry in the Compact Oxford English Dictionary according to their online search page; I can't find it in the print edition of the Concise OED either. The quoted Pepys diary entry (25 October 1668) uses a different word. Part of the text is copied verbatim from the cunt article. HaeB (talk) 17:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Strongly suspect its made up. The talk page just has the word "Awesome" which is somewhat suspicious. User hasn't even bothered to do a proper edit on the apparent source article - How is "The Country Wife" wordplay for "jiffwich"?? MadScot (talk) 18:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable or even speedy as blatant misinformation (CSD G3). It is certainly not in the Oxford English Dictionary Online. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It seems to be copied from somewhere, but I can't find where. Blatant misinformation; probably made up. Intothewoods29 (talk) 00:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedied as utter bollocks - and probably an attack page, too. The page was largely identical to Cunt, with a few words changed here and there (the reference to "Gropejiffwich lane" was a giveaway). Grutness...wha? 00:59, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. — Coren ^(talk) 04:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Liam Kearney

Footballer who has never played in a fully professional league, thus failing WP:ATHLETE. No other assertion of notability beyond youth caps (on which there is a consensus that they do not confer notability) and nothing to suggest that he passes WP:BIO either. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 17:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 17:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - can't find any significant coverage to satisfy WP:BIO, only one article from the Irish Herald and one from setanta with him discussing his club, and also fails WP:ATHLETE. Basement12 (T.C) 17:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to keep pending the outcome of this discussion. Basement12 (T.C) 23:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of appearances --T-rex 17:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 20:12, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has played in FAI Premier League - highest level of football in Ireland. We established previously in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neil Gallagher (footballer) that such players are notable. Also there was a discussion recently on whether such players should be deleted in WP Footy that appeared to be unanamious in conferring notability on such players. Nfitz (talk) 01:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - then this needs to be laid down in a set of clearly understandable and accepted guidelines. Similar problems were brought up with this AfD. Notability criteria for football players are an absolute mess with little consistency between cases (as the very example of a keep you give above itself gives examples of articles deleted). At the moment accepted wikipedia policy does not allow for the subject discussed in this AfD to have an article. Basement12 (T.C) 01:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that we established that such players are notable in that AfD is tantamount to intellectual dishonesty. There was another AfD at around the same time which ended in delete. WP:ATHLETE demands "fully professional league", not "fully professional league or semi-professional top divisions". пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 11:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was a fortnight earlier, and didn't get as much discussion - looks like everyone who said Delete also chimed in on the later discussion - and with the later discussion on WP:FOOTIE that seemed to be unanamious in keeping these articles, I'd have thought that using the phrase "intellectual dishonesty" was a violation of both WP:FAITH and WP:NPA. I'd have certainly spoke against it had I known about it. Basement is correct - entire thing is a inconsistent mess.Nfitz (talk) 02:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, player fails notability at WP:ATHLETE as he has never played in a fully-professional league. --Jimbo^[online] 15:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we've established absolutely nothing - he does not play in a fully professional league, therefore he fails WP:ATHLETE, and that's all I care about. --Angelo (talk) 09:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He DOES play in a full time professional team. The League of Ireland has never been a fully professional league but this does not mean player articles should be deleted. Plays in the highest level of football in Ireland. Already established previously in that such players are notable. Also criteria needs to be changed as this is popping up too often. There are almost 1200 LOI players here. Are you going to delete all of them? Number 57 needs to get a life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.94.249.129 (talk) 11:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- He might play for a fully professional club, but WP:ATHLETE clearly states that it must be a fully professional league. We have not established that such players are notable, and the fact that this keeps popping up does not mean the criteria needs to be changed - if anything it means that more people need to know the guidelines before creating articles. Also, I suggest you read WP:NPA before commenting again. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 11:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- GAA players would be kept if they have enough coverage to satisfy WP:N and would pass WP:ATHLETE under the principal that they play at the highest possible level. The problem with football players who only play in Ireland is that the League of Ireland is not the highest level of competition, if the player is good enough they move to England (or Scotland in some cases). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 11:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Liam Kearney is well known across Ireland, and he is as well known as the GAA players and tell me Number 57 are GAA players paid? You find that out and then tell me if a professional player in a semi-professional league is better than amateur players in an amateur game? And they are all just as well known. 6 million people have heard of Liam Kearney, so what more do you have to know about him?--CorkCityFCRebelArmy (talk) 16:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CorkCityFCRebelArmy (talk · contribs) has almost no contributions outside this debate. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 18:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

6 million people have heard of him (or in this edit you claim that 25 million people have heard of him)? Can you provide facts to back that up, because to me that just looks like a ridiculous claim to make. In addition, telling me to "stay away from Irish football articles, if you know what's good for you"[5] is not exactly WP:CIVIL. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 18:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I have a lot of sympathy with the Keep view, in that WP:ATHLETE is flawed if a single game fourth-tier player (or even in the Johnstones Paint Trophy) in England is more notable than a top-tier player in the likes of Ireland and Estonia (even if they are playing Champions League), it is current policy so I have to go with Delete - fchd (talk) 17:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If it is policy to delete professional footballers who play in the top tier of Irish soccer it needs to be changed and as per Nfitz. BigDunc^Talk 18:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If you want to change it go ahead, but for now the policy is very clear - he doesn't play in a fully professional league => he doesn't meet WP:ATHLETE. пﮟოьεԻ 57 18:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - You say I think anyone who has represented their country is by definition notable, and as far as I'm aware, this has always been considered to be the case...' on the talk page of the notability article, this footballer has represented his country at various levels. BigDunc^Talk 18:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I was talking about full internationals - as I stated in the introduction to this AfD, he has only played at youth levels and it has long been consensus that youth caps do not confer notability. пﮟოьεԻ 57 18:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - | In relation to facts, yes I can. At 6 million I was talking about the island in which he comes from. The 25 million is in relation to the rest of the world.--CorkCityFCRebelArmy (talk) 20:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I think the question that needs to be asked is this;"Is someone likely to look this guy up on Wikipedia an expect to find information on him?" I would say the answer is yes, he is a player competing at the highest level of the game in what an english speaking country. Now at the moment the guidelines don't allow for his, or similar articles, to be kept on Wikipedia. However that doesn't mean that the rules on the notability of footballers don't need changing, I for one think that they do. Basement12 (T.C) 20:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless somebody adds references or links to the article that show he passes WP:N. The only external link on the page at present is to Cork City FC, which is not sufficiently independent of the player. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 11:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Change the policy. Again I ask are you going to delete 1200 LOI players? Also dont be so sensitive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.94.249.129 (talk) 13:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please don't attempt to !vote twice -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Many of the current LOI players who have articles meet WP:ATHLETE because they have played in fully professional leagues. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 14:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If we are going to delete all these players, we should really start at the bottom with players from Finn Harps or UCD, who not anything as well known as any of Cork's players.--86.41.94.81 (talk) 14:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't matter where we start, if they don't meet the criteria they don't meet the criteria regardless of who they play for. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 15:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. ugen64 (talk) 02:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Per what exactly? I don't see any rationale behind the keep !votes other than WP:ILIKEIT and some nonsense stats on how many people have supposedly heard of him. There is no evidence to suggest that he passes WP:ATHLETE or WP:N. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 16:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Change the policy. Gone beyond a joke at this stage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.198.140.206 (talk) 15:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Go ahead and try and change it, but for now it's clear that he fails it. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 16:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- In less than half an hour of searching, I found and included five reliable sources and I'm certain I can find more. Liam Kearney clearly meets WP:N with or without WP:ATHLETE. Reyk _YO! 20:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the added sources clearly meets the general notability guidelines. RMHED (talk) 23:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deletion as WP:CSD#G10 — Tivedshambo _(t/c) 18:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Makeover travel

An account of the author's unfortunate experiences with cosmetic surgery in Bolivia. Original research. Jll (talk) 17:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Until I saw this, I thought my vacation in Schenectady was awful. Mandsford (talk) 17:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing of value. We66er (talk) 17:54, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User:IceCreamAntisocial has tagged the page for speedy deletion as an attack page, which is probably what I should have done instead of listing it here. Jll (talk) 17:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - not really an article --T-rex 17:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Zero encyclopedic value. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
G10 Basically an attack page. so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:47, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. — Coren ^(talk) 04:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fratire

Non-notable and poorly-defined neologism. It appears this has come up before, early this year, and the consensus was delete, but the article was never deleted, and there's no indication either on the page or in its discussion that it was ever nominated, which makes me suspect foul play. Twin Bird (talk) 15:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article was deleted, but it was re-created a month later. Also, note that you haven't used the AFD templates correctly. -- intgr [talk] 15:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- I've corrected the mistake on this template to allow discussion to proceed on this Afd. — CactusWriter | ^needles 10:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (see my comment below) Delete - as non-notable neo. Same article was previously deleted by Afd — CactusWriter | ^needles 10:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I became aware of this debate because CactusWriter wrote to me about the possibility that this article had been re-created in February (against policy) after the January AfD. If an admin had become aware of it in February, it probably would have been speedy deleted as a G4 (repost of deleted material). But now, since it has existed since February and many editors have contributed, it probably deserves a fresh shot at AfD. I'm somewhat familiar with the Tucker Max article, and there is a sense that this area contains a bit of self-promotion. Nevertheless, the regular press coverage (or major blog coverage) that's included in the current article suggests there is a real phenomenon that might deserve coverage under some appropriate name. If 'fratire'is not the best name, can someone suggest an alternative? This is only a Weak Keep because of concern about WP:NEO, though the present article content is informative and interesting. EdJohnston (talk) 16:54, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most sources seem to be from Tucker himself. Isn't he what the genre is supposed to be about? It all seems like non notable neologism to me. --Banime (talk) 19:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am striking my previous delete which was based on the references to fratire being confined to a brief period of 2006 when the neologism was born and (I assumed) died. However, on a further search, I find continuing references to it in many university newspapers such as here and here as well as this recent editorial in the New Statesmen. Commercial sites like Amazon.com which use it as a category and trendy blog portals like Gawker.com define a section with the term. I haven't checked JSTOR, but I suspect there are a few scholarly papers written in the journals. Most articles still use quotes around fratire indicating a lack of standard acceptance, and the entire fratire genre may soon die the death of the typical trendy cliche -- but at the moment, there does appear to be enough discussion about it to warrant keeping this article. CactusWriter | ^needles 05:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I turned down the {{g4}} deletion because the references cited suggested the term meeting the threshhold of multiple nontrivial coverages in reliable sources. I see the reluctant usage by some writers in the press, but that reluctance could simply be their somewhat ambivalent feelings towards the term as it could be their suspicions that it might not be a valid concept outside of its originator(s). However, that might be considered original reasearch, my attempting to decipher the intentions of writers. The term redneck has had its popular meaning revised and/or altered due in no small part to comedians such as Jeff Foxworthy's skits, so deliberate introduction or redefining of a word by a writer of any sort causing wider usage is outside the discretion of notability. (Hope that makes sense.) - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.I believe I created this article a while back. I hate to do this but the assertion that most of the sources are from Tucker is just plain false. And I think again, a literary genre that premieres on the front of the New York Times Style section seems like an obvious candidate for a wikipedia page to me. Metrosexual isn't exactly a current trend but it's page still exists and rightly so. It currently has 9 sources (plus the additional ones that Cactus added) including Time Magazine, NYT, and a series of pieces from the Huffington Post. For those of you asking for deletion, what else do you feel that this article would nee? TheRegicider (talk) 22:59, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.i dont think this is a notable genre just because it's mentioned in the nytimes in one time. the huffington post is the other site that mentions fratire, but that's not a reliable source. sounds just like a vanity moniker for 3 or 4 barely notable authors Theserialcomma (talk) 04:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The Huffington Post is considered a leading news source for political commentary and reliable for editorial content - for which the article uses it as a reference. Besides the NY times, the article also contains commentary from The Guardian/Observer, National Public Radio, the Financial Times, the New Statesman and further reading in Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies, a peer-reviewed journal. — CactusWriter | ^needles 14:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable little neologism with no significant track record as yet. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 16:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That Handsome Devil

AfDs for this article:

The band's only apparent item of note up until recently was the inclusion of a track in Guitar Hero II. A song has been included in List of songs in Rock Band 2. Recent edits have been attempting to wikilink to the band's article, leading to a number of articles that incorrectly point towards Guitar Hero (as per the original redirect). If not deletion, the article is in need dire need of cleanup/creation in order to avoid confusion caused by linking a band name to a video game article they have no connection to save for a single song. -- TRTX ^{T / C} 16:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: - Looking at the article's history, attempts were made to flesh out the article here, which were then rejected and removed in one fell swoop here. I would be in support of keeping the article if it's allowed to be reverted to a state similiar to the first link. -- TRTX ^{T / C} 16:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: - WP:Music #10 was originally used to apply to this band. However, with the inclusion in a second work of note (Rock Band 2), the question becomes which one would the redirect apply to? -- TRTX ^{T / C} 17:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article "deleted" on August 10, 2007 with a redirect to List of songs in Guitar Hero II left behind. TRTX seems to be disagreeing with that deletion? If so, it would seem that deletion review is more appropriate, or a redirect deletion discussion, not restoring the original article against the previous deletion discussion, then renominating it for deletion. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response - As stated above, the use of WP: Music referenced in the original AfD no longer applies. I have restored the article to a previous state that attempted to fulfil the request to build a more substantial article as a temporary place holder so that both articles referencing the band actually point to the band (rather than RB2 unexplicably linking to GHII). It is inaccurate to present That Handsome Devil as relevent only due to inclusion in GHII when we now have a second noteable item which also references it. I support deletion if it is decided that the band is not noteable enough to support a full article. But I do not support the inaccurate redirect. -- TRTX ^{T / C} 02:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the band is still unnotable and the article is no different from it was when it was deleting via redirect last time. Due to the issue of link conflicts, go with full deletion rather than redirect. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:11, 14 September 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) 00:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. I was prepared to endorse deletion, but I just can't shake feeling that it's inappropriate to delete the article because we don't know what to do with it. The group's original claim to notability - having a song available on a notable game as a bonus track - was weak. It now has a stronger claim - yet another song will be featured in a different notable game. As a result of this increased notability, the article now should be deleted? The guidelines are to be read with common sense, and to me the easiest way to avoid a paradoxical result is to keep the version mentioned by the nom. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. agreed that the whole delete/redirect/unredirect/delete thing is ass-backwards, but looking at this AfD in isolation still points to the band being not-notable enough for an article. We delete article by bands with greater success this early in there careers until they have enough reliable sources and pass WP:MUSIC. Some of the older Singstar games were mostly songs by unknown musicians that have never gone on to achieve enough success to have an article - inclusion in a game is very little claim to notability, and nor is being on a compilation. I say delete now, and allow recreation if/when the first album gets enough press, or wait for the 2nd album.Yobmod (talk) 14:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:21, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard Coleman Memorial Square

Article was prodded, but later removed. For a local plaza to be notable there would have to be a nice amount of reliable sources on it. The first source is more about Howard Beach rather than the Square. The second one's just a photo gallery. Ergo, no notability. Wizardman 16:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sorry, but a lost case, see above. Also, this violates these rules: notability, reliable sources, notability of a plaza is not inherited from a neighborhood. This is a tiny space on a tiny island. Bearian (talk) 20:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The square seems non notable in my search. If there is enough material about the actual memorial, it might make an article on its own. --Stormbay (talk) 21:27, 17 September 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) 00:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I thought that the article, with picture, would be more convincing to keep. The picture just looks like a street. Miami33139 (talk) 00:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ff m 13:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Music of Ren and Stimpy

AfDs for this article:

Last AFD closed as no consensus, still no sources or explanation of why this is important. Mr.Z-man 16:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Synthesized list, no reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. We66er (talk) 17:54, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - trivial intersection. no sources available --T-rex 18:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —treelo _radda 21:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Cleanup. Music is an integral part of the show. ShipFan (talk) 13:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's what people said 10 months ago. The massive lists were removed, but virtually no actual cleanup was done and no sources were added. Mr.Z-man 16:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete, A7. Author has been username-blocked by Edgar181. Blueboy 96 16:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James D. Lyons

not notable. unsourced. COI. Kittybrewster ☎ 16:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete This seems eligible for eligible for WP:CSD#A7. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whiteowl Drop That

The article was prodded previously for failing WP:MUSIC by being a non-notable mix tape. The PROD was later removed. I agree with the original PROD, and believe that this is still the case. Rockfang (talk) 16:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Mixtapes generally aren't notable, and I see nothing that makes this one notable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:54, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as NN. We66er (talk) 17:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC#Albums. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 11:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as article doesn't even attempt to establish notability. Should have been speedy deleted in the first place. Darimoma (talk) 02:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It couldn't have been speedied. None of the general criteria seem to apply. The only article criteria that seems to come close, is A7, but that "...applies only to articles about web content or articles on people and organizations themselves, not articles on their books, albums, software and so on."--Rockfang (talk) 02:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Coren ^(talk) 04:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Jive Aces

Notability - It's been tagged for notability for a year now, and the only things anyone's come up with are self-published reviews (and that I mean by self-published authors, not reviews published by the band), some club they play at every Friday calling them "The UKs No 1 [sic] Jive and Swing Band" and unsourced claims of them having worked with Van Morrison, Count Basie and John Travolta. I've done some Google searches, and can't come up with much other than self-published sources or other non-reliable sources, one article about how some members of an audience at one of their gigs in Derry were upset that they were pushing Scientology, and the Derry city council page about the award. I've also done a Google News Archive Search, and have come up with 122 hits, but they almost all seem to be either Jive Aces promotional material or promo material for jazz/swing festivals they've played at. A couple of exceptions - a couple of letters to the editor claiming they played very well, and a Guardian article briefly mentioning that the Church of Scientology allegedly used them to sweeten the City of London police. In all, they don't seem to have significant coverage, and so don't pass WP:NOTE. Darimoma (talk) 16:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete due to lack of significant independent coverage. This band have been pushing their message all over Britain and further afield for several years, but nobody seems interested enough to write about them, so we shouldn't have an article here. They have certainly performed extensively (I've seen them playing on the street in my local city centre) and have several releases, but in this case I don't feel that's enough. If significant independent coverage came to light, that would change things.--Michig (talk) 16:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. We66er (talk) 17:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 11:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Life (manga). — Coren ^(talk) 04:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ayumu Shiiba

This character does not assert notability outside the manga. It is unlikely that any third party sources will ever talk about it outside of the context of the series, so it has no reason to exist. TTN (talk) 16:19, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability outside its fictional world. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no real-world notability. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Contra the nominator's assertion, it is quite possible that third-party sources talk about this character, as she is the lead in a series intending to be socially aware (read, shocking) that has been adapted as a live-action tv drama -- precisely the sort of thing that conservative commentators love to pontificate about. Such commentary, however, is likely to be in Japanese. I strongly suggest we get some people from the Japan WikiProject in here for an assist. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While the article certainly needs improvement, being the main character in a manga and a live-action tv drama is a definite indication of notability. Edward321 (talk) 05:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & redirect to Life (manga), all the character info is there. The subject isn't notable per guidelines to warrant an individual article. RMHED (talk) 23:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Karma Knows

Article seems to be more about Boz than the album so possibly a db-bio speedy candidate. Overly praises the artist, no evidence of notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ros0709 (talk • contribs)

Delete The charts cited at the bottom aren't major music charts, and the page is overly peacock-ish. The artist doesn't seem to actually have a page. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - album by a non-notable music group --T-rex 18:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pick up your coat on the way out. JuJube (talk) 22:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable album by a non-notable artist. Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:V. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 20:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Xy7 (talk) 20:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lal Singh Kalsi

Deleted by PROD, but later resurrected; thus I want to emphasize that this is NOT a "someone created this five minutes ago and I'm immediately nomming it for deletion" nom. There is a lack of reliable sources available to verify claims and assert notability; there is no reference for "several documentary films", only the one that he wrote and directed. A full and neutral biography could not be written from the available sources. It does not appear to meet the WP:N standard of non-trivial coverage in multiple, reliable, third party sources. Cheers, CP 15:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We're not an IMDB mirror; if this guy is notable, the article should reference more secondary sources to establish that. TheMolecularMan (talk) 23:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TheMolecularMan. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 20:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 01:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ezatullah (Sorubi, Nangarhar, 2001)

Contested PROD. There are simply not enough sources to write a full, neutral biography of this individual. I found two mentions that, while verifying the information in the article, are no more than trivial:

A one sentence mention in a New York times article, which, rephrased, is basically the entirety of the article.
Six years later, a mention in three paragraphs of a larger article with some brief quotes

These are trivial mentions and, as such, do not meet WP:N's requirement of a subject's non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. All we can say about him is mentioning two posts that he's held and perhaps his opinion as presented by the Wall Street Journal. That is not appropriate for a biography of a living person. It may be argued that he is automatically notable as a district governor (is that sub-national?) per WP:POLITICIAN, in which case the information here should be merged into another more detailed article. It cannot stand alone as an article. Cheers, CP 02:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- no offense, but I think there is a difference between notability and notoriety. Nominator seems to be suggesting that the holder an important political position has to be famous (ie notorious) in order to merit coverage here. I suggest being a leader of a provisional government makes an individual notable. Nominator asks:
It may be argued that he is automatically notable as a district governor (is that sub-national?) per WP:POLITICIAN

Well , the Eastern Shura, of which Ezatullah was a leader, was at least briefly independent. The anti-Taliban leaders who formed the Eastern Shura could have joined with the Northern Alliance. They chose not to, giving them an independent voice at the Bonn Conference that chose Hamid Karzai as leader of the Afghan Transitional Authority. That would make him a leader at the National level -- clearly qualifying for inclusion under WP:POLITICIAN.

Comment -- Ezatullah is a very common name in Afghanistan. Our disambiguation page, Ezatullah, currently list half a dozen individuals named Ezatullah. The standards for disambiguation pages are that they are not supposed to contain references. These individuals are all easily confused, if we don't have articles about each of them, with references that allow us to distinguish between them. Geo Swan (talk) 04:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Nominator may have confused the Ezatullah from Nangarhar with the Ezatullah appointed to a position in Sangin -- hundreds of miles away. They might be the same guy -- but that would be unsupported speculation. We have zero indication that they are the same individual, except that they share a very common name. Deletion of brief, neutral, factual articles like this one, are a disservice to the wikipedia project, because they guarantee later confusion. When additional notable references to an Ezatullah in Afghanistan come to light it guarantees that whoever wants to include that information has to repeat the same hours of research that have already been performed, to figure out which Ezatullah those references refer to. Geo Swan (talk) 04:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Please do not put words into my mouth; I never suggested that anyone has to be famous in order to merit coverage. Accusing me of such shallow and trite thinking is an uncalled for insult and distracts from the issues at hand. In quoting me, my suggestion that "in which case the information here should be merged into another more detailed article. It cannot stand alone as an article" was left out, thus giving more credence to the above interpretation what I may be "suggesting". Taken together, I am suggesting that WP:POLITICIAN as a policy does not automatically override the policy guidelines at WP:N, it merely suggests that the material should be on Wikipedia in some fashion. There are many subjects on Wikipedia that are notable, but do not have their own article; for a long time The Angry Video Game Nerd was deemed notable enough only to have a section about him in ScrewAttack. Later, when more sources came out, he was given his own article. You have suggested that he is notable per WP:POLITICIAN, fine. But why not merge this into some other article, delete this redirect as it is a highly unlikely search term and create a link to the section from the Ezatullah page. If all that were to be agreed upon, then I would obviously withdraw the nom. At the moment, however, I feel that it is appropriate to boldy draw some attention to this issue by suggesting that this individual article be deleted. There is simply no evidence of enough sources to support a full, neutral article here. I also view the "is it the same guy" question as an irrelevant distraction but, if anyone disagrees, they may view my response to this on my talk page, as I see no reason to further discussion on that subject here. Cheers, CP 05:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to subsection? -- Nominator asks why not merge this material into another article, and change the disambiguation page (Ezatullah), to point to the subsection heading of the target of the merge where this material had been shoehorned. Why not? Because redirection to subsection heading is deeply broken. Geo Swan (talk) 08:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I think systemic bias may be an issue here; see WP:BIAS. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:51, 9 September 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) 15:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 20:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, ~~this google search gives no results. --Soman (talk) 10:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)~~ Seems i misspelled, [6] is probably more correct. --Soman (talk) 10:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Probably notable, given the leadership role specified by the NYT. (I don't see the POV problem--whatever one thinks of his activities, the NYT is a reliable source for his role.) We should be able to write a better article except for cultural bias in searching and the name problem. Although it might seem that a combination article would do, it is probably simpler and less confusing to give each person their own main article.DGG (talk) 18:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 09:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wolgot

The article about this supposed city does not have a strong, solid background. There are absolutely no statistics and demographics to speak of, nor anything indicating a strong presence in the realm of geography. As it is, the article is of very poor quality right now, and is thus worthy for deletion. --Let Us Update Special:Ancientpages. 15:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Official website is under construction; here, i think. - -[The Spooky One] | ^{[t c r]} 15:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Reply An official website for a city would most likely have the ".go.kr" suffix. --Let Us Update Special:Ancientpages. 15:47, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. —- -[The Spooky One] | ^{[t c r]} 15:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see no reason why this article shouldn't be kept; this may be a case of WP:POINT,

(Basically to make a short story shorter; the user had this page listed at User:LUUSAP/Wolgot, i turned it into a wikipedia article. The user responded with this Edit. I informed the user here about GFDL. The user has prodded the article (twice) before listing it here for AFD). - -[The Spooky One] | ^{[t c r]} 15:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've found mentionings of Wolgot here & Here - -[The Spooky One] | ^{[t c r]} 16:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've also found mentions of a "Wolgot-myon" and a "Wolgot-dong" through searches of "Wolgot". Are these the city in construction where talking about or different places alltogether? - -[The Spooky One] | ^{[t c r]} 16:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ I don't know if the AFD nominee can vote as well, but if we can, then I'm voting. --Let Us Update Special:Ancientpages. 03:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination counts as a "vote" already, but really it's WP:NOTAVOTE it's a discussion. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 02:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. I'm a bit concerned the location found on the internet for Wolgot appears to be fields and trees. Doesn't seem to be much of a city there: http://www.maplandia.com/korea-south/kyonggi-do/wolgot/ Now of course, high altitude imagery may have been done many years ago, but then again, I'd like to be sure there's an actual city being built there, so reliable sources are needed. Equendil Talk 09:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, it seems sort of notable, but I am not sure if it falls foul of wp:crystal ball --UltraMagnus (talk) 08:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Whatever the history of pointiness, Googling the term brings up only 5000 hits, googling "Wolgot Korea" limits it down to 1500. None of the ones I checked looked like reliable sources. So unless actual reliable sources can be found, I don't see much value in the article. Please note that the current quality of the article is quite irrelevant, what is important is the potential quality that can be achieved with available sources. If someone digs out reliable sources, I'm quite willing to change my vote. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
move to userspace, until some reliable source identifies its existence and location. There is confusion as to precisly the location of the city, or even which provience its in. Google news lists potential matches as: Wolgot-myon, Kimpo-kun, Kyonggi Province; Wolgot-myeon, Yonggang-ri; Wolgot-Myeon Gyeonggi-Do; Wolgot-myun Gimpo-shi Gyunggi-do. Its supposibly near Siheung in Gyeonggi, and there is reports of construction in Yonggang [7]. --Salix alba (talk) 11:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - too many WP:V issues, and copying-and-pasting an article from someone's sandbox into an article without crediting them as the author violates the GFDL. Mr.Z-man 17:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all towns/cities are inherently notable a long as they can be proved to exist and I have found several mentions of it.[8][9] - Icewedge (talk) 18:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the problem, that we don't even known where it is. The article says its being built near Siheung (google map) south of Seoul, yet the second ref, puts it somewhere to the north east of Seoul. The first ref does not have enough detail to locate it. --Salix alba (talk) 18:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have tried to find citations for a undeniable location for this place. It seems to be non-notable, if it is to exist at all doktorb _words^deeds 22:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ff m 13:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Walter J. West

Contested prod, basically because "the College Football wikiproject consensus is that college football head coaches are notable". You can see the discussion about this on the article talk page. Basically, I disagree with this blanket notability agreed upon by this Wikiproject, which is in direct disagreement with WP:BIO / WP:NOTE. There is no indication that there are multiple reliable independent sources about this person. He has coached this college team, that is not disputed, but that's about all there is to say about him. His run as a coach seems to have been unremarkable, and there are no other facts which would make him notable. While he does meet the notability essay of the College Football project, this essay is so far remote from WP:NOTE, WP:BIO and even WP:ATHLETE as to make it not supported by global consensus, but only by a very local one. I have suggested making a list of head coaches for this college where this info would be available, with only individual articles for the truly notable ones, but that seems to be unacceptable. Fram (talk) 14:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per CFB:COACH and points below:

Nominator appears to be "forum shopping" -- editor admits to not liking the resulting discussion on the talk page and wants to try again. By itself, not so much--but mixed in with the rest, worth noting
Nominator failed to notify other editors about the re-nomination.
Nominator openly states that the issue is with CFB:N and the discussion should go there, not on this particular article. Why this article? Why this coach?
Nominator says that CFB:N is in direct violation of WP:BIO and WP:NOTE but does not state how that violation occurs. We would be thrilled to discuss at [{WP:CFB]]!
Nominator states "There is no indication that there are multiple reliable independent sources about this person" -- WP:GOOGLEHITS -- offline sources do indeed exist, as exist for all college football coaches through the massive ammounts of record keeping in the media. Just because you can't find it on GOOGLE doesn't mean it doesn't exist, and football coaching records from 1949-1952 fit into that historical category. Google and other search engines are useful tools in determining notability, but are not the only rule. Even for modern-day players, it is highly unlikely that a first-round draft pick at offensive line will be written about through traditional news and web channels.
"His run as a coach seems to have been unremarkable": Specialist Topics are often not well known - Notability does not necessarily arrive from being widely known, but can also arrive from the importance or uniqueness in the field. He was the only coach with his team's schedule--the only coach to play the teams he played, that year in that order. To the untrained eye, yes one college football team can look a lot like another. However, each week rankings and standings are modified based on win-loss records, performance, computer analysis, and even sportswriter and head coaches opinions. At all levels of college football, team "A" defeating team "B" can dramatically affect team "C" in conference championships, weekly rankings, invitations to bowl games and/or bracket seeding in tournaments. Even ESPN.com ranks a bottom 10 every week during the regular season. In the great scheme of college football, there is no such thing as an "unimportant game" during the regular season. Additionally, detailed historical analysis continues on games that have already been played.
"and there are no other facts which would make him notable" except that he was a head coach for three years in college football, an amateur sport at the highest level. Consensus has repeatedly supported notability for this accomplishment.
And for all the other reasons on the talk page--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: To quote from CFB:COACH: "This page is a WikiProject essay on notability. It contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more WikiProjects on how they interpret notability within their area of expertise. It is not a policy or guideline, and editors are free to, but not obliged to follow it during XfD's." Quite aside from that I feel completely confident that Paul McDonald's assertion of how important every college football team is might not be shared by the average football fan in reference to a program that only last year started Division III football, it is scarcely forum shopping to point out the obvious and ongoing fact that the various Wikiprojects have not, yet, been given the authority to write notability guidelines that overrule WP:N, WP:ORG or WP:ATHLETE. Beyond that, I've no great confidence in their ability to set notability criteria if they assert that every coach who has ever coached a college game is notable, or that any level of college football below NCAA Division I is the "highest level" of amateur sport in that field. That's not "setting" a thing; that's declaring that everyone is notable, and that's an end run around WP:N I doubt many Wikipedians would find acceptable. RGTraynor 16:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And to address a couple other of McDonald's points:

Alerting Wikiprojects of pertinent AfD discussions is a courtesy, not a requirement.
Why this article? Quite aside from that this tiny school with no history of NCAA football at any level makes a lot better case for non-notability than a contemporaneous coach at Penn State or Harvard? If you run into an article that doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion, it's suitable for the deletion process, period.
Per deletion policy, it is explicitly the duty of editors who wish to save an article to provide reliable sources. We cannot just assume that such sources exist. RGTraynor 16:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Yes, the essay is not a policy or guideline. And yes, this year Geneva College will play in NCAA Division III, and I think (but am not sure) that the previous year Geneva was an NAIA school. But that is now. This coach was at the position from 1949 to 1952--before the NCAA began to divide into divisions, and the school was an NCAA school at the time. So without question the team was at the highest level of amateur sports at the time. While today, the program may be performing at a lower or lesser level, it doesn't matter.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: It was? Have you any evidence of that? That aside, I just took a close look at the talk page for CFB:COACH, and realized that, in point of fact, only three other editors even commented on it besides yourself, one of those editors pretty much uniformly panned them, and no one else seems to wholly concur. You seem to be conflating lack of comment to Wikipedia-wide consensus to overrule WP:ATHLETE, and that's pretty startling. RGTraynor 16:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please Read the following: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oscar Dahlene, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fay G. Moulton, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Gottsch, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James A. Stevens, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam B. Taylor, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hoover J. Wright, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prairie View coaches -- You will find much more than three editors.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

* None of those are discussions of your private notability essay. In the case of Dahlene, it is a heavily sourced article for the coach of a major program who wound up being a college president, a post that has been held to be de facto notable. In the case of Moulton, the nomination was withdrawn because he was an Olympic athlete, another de facto notable bit. Taylor had broad notability outside of football. Wright was inducted into the US Track and Field Hall of Fame. And so on and so forth. Truth be told, the thread linking all those AfDs are the passionate Keep votes made by yourself, User:JKBrooks85 and User:VegaDark in almost every case. RGTraynor 17:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response Yeah, and the other people that responded, too. Please don't say that because three editors are enthusiastic about a topic that no one else responded when in fact they have. Yes, I am the editor who "passionately pursued" keeping and am "the thread that ties it together" -- thanks for the compliment. But I haven't tried to bulldoze it either. Invitiations for discussion on CFB:N have been sent out to at least twelve other related WikiProjects listed at the Family of Projects as well as inclusion in the College Football Project Newsletter. A simple What Links Here check shows well over 100 articles/user pages/talk pages that link to the essay. WP:CON states "In essence, silence implies consent, if there is adequate exposure to the community." I would say that requests for input to 12 projects, contact to all editors on the CFB team, and over 100 links to other articles/user pages would at least be close to "adequate exposure" -- how can we get more?--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't conflate people voting Keep in AfDs with them participating in adopting a consensus policy at a Wikiproject. WP:CON also holds, "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, can not over-ride community consensus on a wider scale," and "Consensus decisions in specific cases are not expected to automatically override consensus on a wider scale - for instance, a local debate on a WikiProject does not override the larger consensus behind a policy or guideline. The WikiProject cannot decide that for the articles within its scope, some policy does not apply, unless they can convince the broader community that doing so is the right course of action." There is even an active notability discussion for athletes over at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people); why not post your criteria there and see how many people sign off on it? RGTraynor 19:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that the twelve projects that I notified are not exactly a "limited group of editors", plus with the listing among the essays category, the newsletter announcements, and other measures taken--it's not like two or three people got together and decided this--just that a few editors were actively involved in the writing of it. Many, many, many people have viewed and reviewed the essay. The essay has stood up against multiple AFDs in the past and even been referenced on projects outside sports as a model notability essay (Wikipedia Airports, I think). The broader community has been convinced. Yes, consensus can change, and the project welcomes all input on that consensus--but here is not the place to do it. And for the notability/athlete/people project, I think we already have... but I'll go there right now.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment One online source is given. Yes, we like more. Please understand the difference between "verifiable" and "verified" -- sources must be "verifiable" and not necessarily "verified"--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The online source given is not only the college's own website, which is not "independent" per WP:N, but constitutes trivial mention, as the only information about West given is his won-loss record and the years he coached. RGTraynor 17:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Question oh and I'll ask again: exactly how does CFB:N violate WP:BIO, WP:N, WP:ORG, and WP:ATHLETE ?--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - There are many problems with CFB:N, but in the end it isn't pertinent to this debate, as it has no actual policy standing. RGTraynor 17:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Except that the reason the nominator gave is specifically because of CFB:N.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Would you point out where CFB:N is linked in the nomination? He seems to be speaking about CFB:COACH, as far as I can tell. RGTraynor 17:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        CFB:COACH is a part of CFB:N.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable. Needs proof of signifcantly more ~~non-trivial coverage~~ coverage which is also non-trivial if it's to be kept. More detailed points:
- WP:N requires non-trivial coverage. IMO mentions in record books etc is almost certainly going to be trivial probably listing no more than his record. The coverage in the link provided looks trivial to me.
- My reading of "Competitors who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports" from WP:ATHLETE is that it should apply to amateur sports or at least sports that were amateur at the relevant time. American football is not amateur so I do not think falls under this category. Even if we accept that this guideline is meant to cover college football I doubt there would be many editors that would consider "Division III" top level. Given the coverage college football recieves in America I would have no problems with coverage of some of the players / coaches for the top teams but I seriously doubt this would stretch to Division III.
- CFB:COACH does not trump WP:N especially as it's not been adopted and doesn't look close to being.
- I agree with the others that state that this is a perfectly acceptable place to discuss this. If CFB:COACH was an accepted standard then I might disagree but as it isn't it's perfectly proper to bring it here.

Dpmuk (talk) 17:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - HUH??? Exactly how is college football not an amateur sport? Seriously.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that although college football is amateur, american football as a sport is not. We do not have articles on players in the Football Conference as although this could be argued to be the top level of the amateur game, football (soccer) is, as a sport, a professional sport and there are many more notable layers above it. In the case of college football there's the NFL. I accept it's not an exact comparission given the importance of college football in the US but in my opinion it's enough to make this criteria inapplicable and mean that competitors in college football will have to meet the general WP:N guidelines, which of course many will, although this coach does not. My understanding, and intpretation, was that the "amateur sport" criteria was written to include players at the top of a sport when the entire sport was amateur, e.g. Rugby Union up to the mid-nineties, where no player was professional so would never have qualified under the first athlete criteria despite the league they were playing in having a similar standing to the top league in professional sports. This clearly does not apply for college football as the pinnacle of an American Football career is the NFL. Dpmuk (talk) 21:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of the NFL does not negatge the notability of college football. Please read WP:ATHLETE more carefully. The second point says "Competitors who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports" not "Competitors who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports unless there is a professional league for that sport." --Paul McDonald (talk) 00:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have read it carefully - it's only one sentence! It's basically all down to interpretation and what you take "highest level in amateur sports" to mean. As stated above I think this to mean "the highest level of a sport where the entire sport at all levels is amateur" (e.g. Rugby Union prior to 1995) whereas you take it to mean "the highest level of the amateur levels of a sport". I think both are valid interpretations of the sentence (don't you just love the ambiguity in the English language). However I think common wikipedia usage is more towards my interpretation. As stated above we don't automatically think the top plays in amateur football (soccer) are notable (there's a whole bunch of AfDs to support this). Likewise we don't have articles on the top amateur tennis players, top amateur baseball players etc. (unless they're notable for some other reason under general notability guidelines). Now I accept the situation in American Football is different to all these sports but it's a general guideline and it would be really odd if people interpreted it one way for one sport and another way for others. Dpmuk (talk) 01:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is only one sentence... so why are you adding so much to it instead of just what it says? I hate to be harsh in discussions like this, but seriously: If you know it's only why sentence, how can you be getting it so wrong?--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to be WP:CIVIL and accept that people may intpret things differently do you. Just because they do doesn't mean it's not valid - I accept that your inpretation is a valid one I just disagree with it. Why can't you do the same with my interpretation? I'm not adding anything in to it, in this context I would take "amateur sports" to mean "a sport where the entire sport is amateur" - I only expanded it above to make that clear. I would add that I am far from the only person to intpret it like that - see WP:FOOTY/N which has been accepted by many editors. Dpmuk (talk) 11:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As stated by Paul, this man competed at the highest amateur level, which WP:ATHLETE guarantees to be notable. It's basically like politicians: if we have a single reliable source (if Geneva isn't a reliable source for its coaches, the Biographical Directory of the United States Congress isn't a reliable source for members of the US Congress) that someone was a legislator, that's sufficient to prove notability and to keep the article. We have no more reason to require lots of nontrivial coverage of this man than we do of government officials and professional sportspeople. Nyttend (talk) 17:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We have no reason for lots of non-trivial coverage but as per WP:N we need some and I've yet to see any as the one reference in the article is clearly trivial. Dpmuk (talk) 18:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no evidence that the subject competed; he was a coach. The language of WP:ATHLETE is "Competitors who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports." Paul is quite wrong; West coached nowhere near the highest level of amateur football as would have been defined either then or now, and was not, so far as we know, a competitor. WP:N does not require "lots" of nontrivial coverage, but it does require some. RGTraynor 19:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- It appears we have an interesting situation where someone has built a series of coach articles for a D-III school that would otherwise be considered acceptable for a D-IA (now FBS) school. Here's my suggestion: Merge all coaches were weren't notable enough (i.e. went on to a bigger program or professional league) into an article about Geneva College Golden Tornadoes head football coaches or something like that. If a coach deserved more information, then simply have a "see main article" branch within the article on the group of coaches. I think all the information present in this article would be appropriate for that merged article. --Bobak (talk) 19:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion invitations were sent to Sports and American Football projects.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As this guy plainly fulfills the college football project's criteria, why are you seeking to have just this article deleted? Perhaps it would be more productive, if you believe the criteria to be contrary to overall notability standards, to seek to overturn the project's criteria and then revisit this question? Nyttend (talk) 20:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I consider "signifcantly more non-trivial coverage" (which is what it said when I placed my "keep") to be equivalent to "lots". Anyway, seeing how many people we have in Category:American football officials and Category:Baseball umpires, I'd guess that other people than the actual sportspeople are generally considered to count under WP:ATHLETE. I'm well aware that other stuff exists, and that we're not debating whether baseball umpires should have articles, but please consider that "competitors" apparently isn't always interpreted as meaning just the people actually playing. Nyttend (talk) 20:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mm, that really is the overwhelming definition, actually; competitors are those who compete. As you say, this AfD isn't about baseball umpires, although I agree they don't qualify under WP:ATHLETE either and must rely upon WP:BIO's general (and far stricter) criteria. That being said, my position - and that of Wikipedia policy, come to that - is that no Wikiproject yet has the power to override broad, explicit policy and guideline. While my somewhat harsh answer to Paul's legitimate question of "How can we get more?" is "If you can't, you have no meaningful consensus," this AfD must still be decided on black letter, official policy and guideline. No such policy or guideline supports retention of a biographical article for a subject without any meaningful, reliable sources, no biographical information whatsoever, no evidence of notability and who means none of the explicit secondary criteria under WP:BIO. RGTraynor 21:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Even ignoring the fact that it is perfectly within wikipedia policy to discuss this here, it is also seems to me to be the best place for it as I bet many people with an opinion on this subject don't even know the college football project exists and are even less likely to comment on the guidelines there. Instead of moaning about this discussion being held at AfD why don't you consider this an oppurtinity to start to form a wider consensus on at least one part of the college football guidelines. I also suspect that this will be a bit like a test case and that many other coaches will be nominated if it succeeds. Dpmuk (talk) 21:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Be happy to. Already invited users from over 12 other projects, commented and participated in multiple AFDs, listed the essay in the wikipedia essay category, worked with comments on WP:N, ... what else should the project do? The project has asked and asked, but no one seems to want to comment on the essay, only on individual articles. Per WP:CON, silence implies consensus.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - And when your crew posts to the talk page on WP:N to say "Our criteria supercedes the general criteria of WP:N and WP:BIO," and no one responds one way or the other, I'll cheerfully concede that you've obtained project-wide consensus that it does. RGTraynor 18:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - This isn't personal. The college football project is not "my crew" (we have our disagreements). This is about making Wikipedia better.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Upon reading everyone's arguments. It appears unless we redefine the meaning of "competitor", "highest level" and only for a certain value of "amateur sports", criteria in WP:BIO are simply not met. The basic problem here is that the wikiproject involved doesn't seem to agree with Wikipedia's scope and policy. However, Wikipedia is not a universal wiki, it is not a wiki farm, if the rules are not adequate for your project, the most sensible course of action is to migrate to a separate, specialized wiki, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. Wikia ? Equendil Talk 22:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Quesiton Okay, I'll bite: Exactly how is the head coach not a competitor, how is College Football not the highest level of the amateur sport, and exactly how does "amateur sport" need to be re-defined? It's not enough to just say "they are not met" -- how are they not met?--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - NAIA football is not remotely the highest level of college football, and no coach advances a football as much as a yard on the field of play; indeed, the current wording of WP:ATHLETE specifically deleted coaches because it was not felt they should be prima facie notable. RGTraynor 14:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - This has been discussed above already. Equendil Talk 17:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Discussed, yes... but not to completion or resolution.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has been discussed to my satisfaction. I didn't see much of a counter argument regarding : 1) coaching as opposed to competing; 2) the "highest level" of college football; 3) lack of non trival coverage. I read people's points, I formed an opinion, I did not feel I needed to reiterate points already made, so I didn't. I'm also not quite sure how "amateur sport" is to be interpreted in WP:ATHLETE hence my mention of it. I read it as including those sports that don't have professional competition. Equendil Talk 00:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, lifebaka++ 15:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WikiProjects do not get to redefine notability requirements for articles in their purview and this guy clearly does not meet the agreed standards at WP:BIO etc. Stifle (talk) 15:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete RGTraynor is completely correct. Besides, keeping based on an essay from a Wikiproject would set an extremely bad precedent. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom. Appears to fail both the basic WP:BIO and WP:ATHLETE. - fchd (talk) 16:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Nom. Kittybrewster ☎ 16:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - coaching for three years at a minor college is not an indication of notability --T-rex 18:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Also agree with Stifle. An RfC may be necessary on the contradictory guidelines established by this specific WikiProject. MuZemike (talk) 23:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment — I will add that WikiProjects may establish their own guidelines and policies, they should not be of lower standards than those of the community at large. MuZemike (talk) 23:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Mm, yes. As it stands, WP:ATHLETE is the most notoriously loose guideline of WP:BIO, and there's broad consensus that it should be tightened. There's just no consensus as to how, since the concept of notability varies so widely between sports. Still, it's almost always the case that Wikiproject criteria is a good bit tighter. RGTraynor 05:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Our notability guideline doesn't really cover coaches, which I consider a weakness. However, it doesn't matter in this case. I couldn't find anything online to establish notability, which a low-level college coach would need. Giants2008 (17-14) 03:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and I'm tired of these five-person Wikiprojects making up their own notability guideline which they think the whole WP community must abide by. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment / request. Please would he /she who closes this please delete all coaches with similar non notable bios. Kittybrewster ☎ 07:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-Notable. As if WP:ATHLETE wasn't bad enough. No Wikiproject gets to give their favorite topic a free ride.Kww (talk) 13:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete I would be prepared to accept assumed notability for the coach a a major college team; i would probably accept it for someone who had in some way a seminal or historic role possibly even within the college; I would possiblyy accept it for even a small college where the coach's tenure was associated with championships; but for a small college coach with an undistinguished record holding the position for 4 years only and associated with no major developments of any sort--this is just plain unreasonable. I accept specialized guidelines, but they have to meet the test of common sense as judged by the overall community. I'll defer to those particularly interested as long as they're reasonable about it, and in this case they are not. DGG (talk) 21:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per DGG; do not accept arguments of the keep people to be sufficient to ignore the site-wide policy, and a Wikiproject does not make policy that can override site-wide policy. Daniel (talk) 13:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of The Venture Bros. episodes. — Coren ^(talk) 04:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Lepidopterists

This is an article which reads as a plot summary drawn directly from the primary source. There are no other sources cited. The series does not appear to be syndicated beyond its original broadcaster, it is probably the case that this series of excessively detailed unsourced articles on individual episodes should be condensed and merged to the existing list article - I would view this as a test case in that regard. Wikipedia is not a fan-wiki for publication of plot summaries drawn direct from the original medium. Guy (Help!) 15:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 21:54, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of The Venture Bros. episodes, can't see how any episode of this show requires such a lengthy synopsis, much less an article. Fails WP:N and of course with no sourcing also falls foul of WP:OR. treelo _radda 22:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will open by saying that I am an avid fan of "The Venture Brothers." That being said, I am forced to concede that a great deal of the wikipedia content on this series borders on or runs afoul of the "fancruft" line. There is undoubtedly a great deal of obsessive fans out there who want an article for every episode of this series. Further, I am positive that at some point in the future there will be enough additional content available surrounding these episodes (even things like commentary from the creators) to justify wikipedia entries. That day has not yet come.

Merge to List of The Venture Bros. episodes. Miros (talk) 22:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no secondary sources. We66er (talk) 23:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & redirect to List of The Venture Bros. episodes, this individual episode isn't notable. RMHED (talk) 23:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 04:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pratap (Film)

A film totally lacking reliable sources to satisfy WP:MOVIE (just links to websites for participants in its production) ... PROD contested by anon single-purpose account without comment ... pure vanispamcruftisement by editors with conflict of interest who keep removing the {{Articleissues}} tag without addressing the issues. — The Bipolar Anon-IP Gnome (talk) 15:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Perhaps worth saving as story is about a major Indian historical figure. Sources seem to be out there. Article needs major rewrite to remove POV, wikification, trimming, and sourcing. Will begin an attempt. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment According to this edit to Pratap Singh of Mewar by the author, the film is still in post-production, and hasn't even been released yet, making this WP:CRYSTAL. — The Bipolar Anon-IP Gnome (talk) 16:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry... and not to nitpick, but a film that has completed principle filming and is waiting for a release date is not WP:CRYSTAL. That would be if the film was still in the planning/pre-shoot phase. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not even 1 actor, or director is note worthy. Forget the film. Bollywood is the largest film industry in world, realeases hundreds of films. Not every film is noteworthy.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 13:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that no one involved with the film is notable, but that criteria cannot be considered as notability is not inherited anyway. I agree that Bollywood releases more films in a month than the U.S. does in a year, but that too cannot be considered as quantity does not reflect quality. I also agree that more films are non-notable than are so, but the film appears to be concerned with a very prominant figure from the early history of India and the Indian people. I'm simply having problems with my search for sources. Added to the points you brought up... there was an Indian film by the same name that was released in 1946 as one of the earliest post-war epics from India... and the articles about this current incarnation have attributed THIS later film by several different versions of the the article's name. These factors, and my inability to read Hindi make source hunting a bit tougher than normal. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable per above. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 16:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I do not myself have the knowledge of Indian history or military history to trim this article and keep proper conent. And I do not have the time... but and apparently neither does anyone from Project india or Project military. Certainly the historical aspects of this film are notable, seeing as it deals with a pivotal moment in early Indian history and the military tactics of a singularly unique leader... but as for the film itself.... I do not know. No need to have it cluttering up important space on Wiki until someone gets around to sourcing it. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No prejudice against a redirect to the show — Coren ^(talk) 04:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Jurgens

Not notable fictional character. PHARMBOY (TALK) 15:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Without coverage in reliable sources, this is nothing but an unnecessary extension of the main article. TTN (talk) 19:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of real world information. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no real world relevance. JuJube (talk) 22:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should keep this article due to coverage in reliable sources. --Elisabeth Rogan (talk) 06:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't verify that source because it is behind a subscription wall. Can anyone check and see whether it is non-trivial coverage? Stifle (talk) 16:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: While the source cited does name the character in giving a plot summary, it does not discuss the character in depth. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in depth is not the criterion. Ask for real world information, you've got it, you still want to delete. DGG (talk) 03:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The NYT article gives no coverage of the character other than a summary of the show. Not significant coverage, so the content should be removed. A redirect to the show is in order. The content is short, and can be reproduced by anyone who has watched the show, so I see no need to keep the history to allow merging. But it's not a huge deal either way. seresin ( ¡? ) 04:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Secret Life of the American Teenager. Edward321 (talk) 05:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & redirect to The Secret Life of the American Teenager, the character isn't notable. RMHED (talk) 23:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted (G3). Alexf⁴² 22:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Benson

Blatant hoax as a quick google search shows. Speedy declined by an IP. Nsk92 (talk) 15:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please look through the history log of this page. The description of the subject of the article, whomever he is supposed to be (actor, businessman,...), is changing almost by the second. This was the version at the time of the AfD nom: [10]. Nsk92 (talk) 15:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete as hoax. PHARMBOY (TALK) 15:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Easy call. --Quartermaster (talk) 15:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Hoax/vandalism. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete vandalism. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (A1) — While not pure vandalism as required per G3 (it has to be evident that all versions of the article are to be considered vandalism), there is no context whatsoever and easily fits the A1 criterion for speedy deletion. MuZemike (talk) 17:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Not often you get such an evident hoax article semi-prot'd from all the vandalism thrown at it. treelo _radda 17:44, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Tagged as A1 after a few moments of deliberation. Also endorse blocks on the anons and registered editors in what seems like a co-ordinated attack. treelo _radda 21:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete and block various editors. The number of attack edits in the edit history is ridiculous. I recommend that some blocks be handed out to the editors or IPs responsible for them. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, hoax. Plus, the amount of attacks is getting ridiculous. RockManQ (talk) 21:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —treelo _radda 21:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 10:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cash Rulez

Non-notable song, wasn't released as a single, didn't chart. Reverend X (talk) 15:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article says it all, describing the song as "was supposed to be the 3rd official single". So I guess it was supposed to be notable, but not in both situations. PHARMBOY (TALK) 15:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ff m 12:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 02:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vlad Plasmius

AfDs for this article:

This page has not established notability in about a year. Bettering the Wiki (talk) 15:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Primary villain in a major show. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A very important character with alot of information. [[User:Tutthoth-Ankhre|Tutthoth-Ankhre~ The Pharaoh of the Universe]] (talk) 18:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 22:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The notability concern is a strong one given the prior AfD which this article was a part of. Still hasn't been addressed but as a main character it might be somewhat notable enough. treelo _radda 22:12, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. Main villain. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong trim&merge into List of Danny Phantom characters, where he doesn't seem to be listed yet (or am I just blind?). This article had plenty of "warning" to fix its many issues (WP:RS, WP:WAF, WP:N, WP:NOT#PLOT), now it's time to call the shots and do something about it. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:12, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and fix. As for the merging, discuss on the talk page. We do not better the wiki by deleting articles that can be improved to meet our standards. DGG (talk) 00:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Main villain of the series, but the article needs to be trimmed down as it is far too long for a fictional character, and most of the material therein is fan cruft. Beemer69 ^chitchat 21:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Main villian of a popular series. Edward321 (talk) 05:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy close Wrong venue. Image is already up for speedy deletion, so this doesn't need to be moved to IFD. NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

("Image:Velvet & Angelina Entrance.jpg"

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Image:Velvet & Angelina Entrance.jpg

(delete) – (View AfD)

Copyrighted image.

http://www.tnawrestling.com/content/view/419/37/

Bottom of that link shows this exact picture. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 15:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the place to AFD an image. Try Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. When you put the AFD tag on the image page, it gives you message that explicitely says this. PHARMBOY (TALK) 15:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Notwithstanding the contradiction of displaying an image that you believe should not be displayed, I'm taking this picture down. Complain to an administrator if you want. If you want to nominate an image for deletion, follow Pharmboy's suggestion. Please don't do this again. Thank you. Mandsford (talk) 15:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't aware of that, I had assumed it was the same as an AfD. I'll follow procedure next time. My apologies. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 16:11, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Djalma Bom. MBisanz ^talk 01:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Idalina mantovani

Fails WP:BIO. Google turns up almost nothing and she is not mentioned in the sources cited in the article. Nsk92 (talk) 13:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability isn't inherited. PHARMBOY (TALK) 15:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & redirect to Djalma Bom, Google searches indicate she isn't notable. RMHED (talk) 00:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO. Equendil Talk 09:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ff m 13:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Palmer elementary school

Does not pass WP:ORG. Elementary schools are generally not notable and would not pass even the more inclusive proposed guideline WP:SCHOOL that was recently rejected. I looked around on google and could not find substantial coverage by independent reliable sources. Based on its style, the article looks like it may have been written by a student, possibly as an experiment. Nsk92 (talk) 13:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In the long run, the nominator is right about notability. And I appreciate that Nsk92 has made this a straight nomination on Wikipedia policies; we should follow nominator's example, which is to avoid comment on a student's writing skills, and I hope that other editors will do the same. If I have any criticism of the nomination, it's only that I'd have preferred that a few extra days have been allowed before putting the deletion tag on a kid's first contribution. Mandsford (talk) 14:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable. Only HS + get an auto pass on notability. PHARMBOY (TALK) 15:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per general precedent that schools under high-school level are not notable without extraodinary evidence otherwise. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- or merge into Palmer, Tennessee, if any content is judged to be salvageable. Article seems to be based solely on author's own knowledge, but sourced information about this school could be good addition to the article about the town. ~~The school district website does not seem to have useful information about this school.~~ --Orlady (talk) 20:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC) Update: I found a new school district website, that has a tiny amount of info about this school, mostly that School Colors are Purple and White, Mascot is the Bulldog, and the Principal is Mrs. Sadie Smartt. Also, they apparently were established in 1927, as they celebrated their 80th birthday in 2007. Nothing I have seen indicates that this school is notable, but info from this article could be merged to the article about Palmer. --Orlady (talk) 20:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC) More info: Official school enrollment statistics are on this webpage. --Orlady (talk) 20:47, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; not notable, Or Merge as per above, if any useful information can be put into the Palmer, Tennessee article. RockManQ (talk) 21:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete elementary schools are generally not notable. JuJube (talk) 22:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. We66er (talk) 23:45, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notable information to merge currently. Would not recommend redirecting because there are 17 elementary schools with a similar name [11]. I commend Orlady for the research; that information could be added to Palmer, Tennessee, or to Grundy County School District ideally. --Jh12 (talk) 11:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mortimer Goth; Snow'ed in September. seicer | talk | contribs 00:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bella Goth

AfDs for this article:

This character does not assert notability outside of the its video game appearances. It is unlikely that any third party sources will ever talk about it outside of the context of the games, so it has no reason to exist. TTN (talk) 13:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. TTN (talk) 13:07, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no way in this world that a proper article could ever be written on her. The in-game allusions to her are just gimmicky and aren't important to the gameplay (what is in The Sims?). – sgeureka ^t•c 13:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I like the page that seems to be the first thing you look for in pages to delete. Smurai Cerberus 14:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mortimer Goth. Nifboy (talk) 14:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of substantial verifiable info. Even the official strategy guide didn't have much to say about her, the Goths are essentially just the default neighbours. Besides, it's simple logic that if there was consensus to delete Mortimer, Bella should go too. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball Delete per recent AfD on Mortimer Goth. MuZemike (talk) 17:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball Delete per above. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. — Coren ^(talk) 04:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sabreman

This character does not assert notability outside of the its video game appearances. It is unlikely that any third party sources will ever talk about it outside of the context of the games, so it has no reason to exist. TTN (talk) 13:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. TTN (talk) 13:07, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it is a character spanning more than 20 years of video games. That the character is linked to a series of video games is not a valid reason for deletion. It's like saying we should delete, say, Emma Frost because it's only connected to comics. // Liftarn (talk) 13:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You're comparing a chick who has been in well over 200 comics, at least 7 games and 2 animations for the last 30 years to an old man whos 'spanning more than 20 years of video games' consists of 6 games and 2 cameos. I follow your point, but you could use a better example. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 19:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete; even though the article does double-duty as a character article and a series article, there doesn't appear to be anything the article can be based on, aside from a handful of plot summaries, some cameos, and some rumors. Nifboy (talk) 15:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ultimate Play the Game About as unconvincing an example of a bona fide character as you can get, in most games he's just 'Bloke B' who happens to have been given a name, as opposed to 'Bloke A' (Jetman). Compare the Knightlore image on the Ultimate Play the Game article to the screenshot of the player-character on Gunfright - spot the difference. One is Sabreman, the other is "Sheriff Quickdraw". The fact that the same character name has repeatedly been used in different games may mean something to the Stamper bros. but it's hardly the basis of an article. The GBA Sabre Wulf is so far removed from the originals as to be scarcely relevant and there's nothing indicating that this version of the character is any more noteworthy than the next. If the racing game does turn out to be more than a rumour then the article can always be reverted back. Someone another 22:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe we should keep this article as I will add this source to it. --Elisabeth Rogan (talk) 06:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, sources available don't seem to be sufficient. Stifle (talk) 16:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it doesn't meet our sourcing requirements as seen in WP:GNG. There's one reliable third party source, but all it can do is verify its existence rather than offer anything constructive to verify the article's contents. That said, I would accept a redirect if deletion were deemed inappropriate, as User:Someone another has offered a pretty well-balanced look at this article's merits and problems. Randomran (talk) 16:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis of an easily found source. If there's that, there will be more. Contra TTN, third parties talking about game characters in the context of the game is quite enough; Same for athletes--almost all our sources for footballers talk about them in the context of their football. DGG (talk) 03:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After doing various searches I can find nothing that would indicate this character meets the notability guidelines. When the character is mentioned it is only in reference to the games he appears in, there is nothing to build an article on. The games are notable, this character is not. RMHED (talk) 00:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ff m 12:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jetman (character)

This character does not assert notability outside of the its video game appearances. It is unlikely that any third party sources will ever talk about it outside of the context of the games, so it has no reason to exist. TTN (talk) 13:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the character has appeared in a long running comic as well as a series of video games. // Liftarn (talk) 14:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge/redirect to the first game he appeared in. Appearing in a number of games doesn't make a character notable enough for his own article, but significant third-party sources do - when they discuss a character's creation, reception and influence. No sign of such sources yet, and if they do in fact exist somewhere, they may as well be incorporated into the game articles first. – sgeureka ^t•c 15:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's very little to say here beyond the CRASH (magazine) comic, which can more easily be incorporated into that article. Nifboy (talk) 15:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the character does not meet our sourcing requirements. However, I would not let this AFD prevent someone from creating a Jetman (series) article, to summarize common aspects of the series. Randomran (talk) 18:12, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I created this article some time ago, hoping it would get expanded upon. As it hasn't, it's fair game for deletion. --Oscarthecat (talk) 20:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete as a mostly non-notable character with nearly no RWC. Further, to me the concession by the initial author carries significant weight, and it is commendalbe to admit something like that freely. ThuranX (talk) 21:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ff m 13:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Daniel Fortesque

This character does not assert notability outside of the its video game appearances. It is unlikely that any third party sources will ever talk about it outside of the context of the games, so it has no reason to exist. TTN (talk) 13:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. TTN (talk) 13:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; pure plot, information better suited for the articles on the two games + remake. Nifboy (talk) 15:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable, original research, gamecruft. JuJube (talk) 22:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pure fictional biography, i.e. plot summary (WP:NOT#PLOT). – sgeureka ^t•c 11:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete teh fict bio is too large and the aricle lacks RWC. ThuranX (talk) 21:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ff m 12:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The CIA, al-Qaeda, and the "war on terror"

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/The CIA, al-Qaeda, and the "war on terror"

Well-written essay, but that's what it is; it fails WP:NOR and WP:SYN as being original research, something the creator himself admits on the article's talk page. RGTraynor 12:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's clever, RG, but when I said "original" I meant it was not merely cribbed or copied from another source (except my own). Frank Freeman (talk) 09:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mm, yep, that's pretty much it, yes. RGTraynor 13:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speak for yourself, pal. Or learn more here http://www.geocities.com/libertystrikesback/ptop.html#plan ;-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frank Freeman (talk • contribs) 09:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Soapy personal essay. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 15:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - very POV personal essay --T-rex 18:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SOAP and WP:OR. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 19:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:OR and WP:SOAP. I agree it's very well-written, but that's not the point here. RockManQ (talk) 21:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree that this violates WP:NOR and WP:SOAP. --Aude (talk) 12:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 01:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per all the above-cited policies. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 13:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Space Channel 5. — Coren ^(talk) 04:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ulala

This character does not assert notability outside of the its video game appearances. It is unlikely that any third party sources will ever talk about it outside of the context of the games (other than the lawsuit, which is already covered in better detail within the main article), so it has no reason to exist. TTN (talk) 12:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. TTN (talk) 12:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge to Space Channel 5, where all the pertinent information is. Nifboy (talk) 16:12, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the inability to find reliable third-party sources, thus failing to meet our notability guideline. Randomran (talk) 18:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak redirect to Space Channel 5. The series is marginally popular but I don't see a lot of potential for a breakout article. JuJube (talk) 22:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this is my first comment in one of these, so please bear with me, but anyway, I say we should keep this article due to coverage in third party sources, the out of universe information about the design controversy, the nice presentation of the article with an effective use of imagery and organization, and that it concerns a character who has appeared in multiple games including one called Sega Superstars Tennis. Superstars = notable! --Elisabeth Rogan (talk) 06:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fucking strong keep because, well, she's a video game character. Don't they deserve articles? --TONO459 (talk) 10:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, they don't per se. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Some do, some don't. It depends on whether they meet our policies and guidelines. This one, in particular, lacks reliable third-party sources, and fails to meet our notability guideline, which is supported by the broader Wikipedia community. The best way to save it is to find sources that offer significant coverage, enough to write a non-stub article. Randomran (talk) 15:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge somewhere into Space Channel 5. Some real-world information (good), but nothing really non-trivial (bad). Not enough for a spinout article. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Space Channel 5, which isn't really excessively long. Stifle (talk) 16:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus leans heavily toward delete with the sole keep agreeing the character is not notable enough. Deserving of a link on Pudding (dab) is not a reason to keep. While there is some minor consideration for re-direction, this is not a likely search term due to the name. TravellingCari 01:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pudding (Space Channel 5 character)

This character does not assert notability outside of the its video game appearances. It is unlikely that any third party sources will ever talk about it outside of the context of the games, so it has no reason to exist. TTN (talk) 12:47, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. TTN (talk) 12:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, bit character about which very little can be said that isn't basically a transcript from the games. Nifboy (talk) 16:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nn character --T-rex 18:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. JuJube (talk) 22:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Or Redirect because there is too much info in the first and second paragraph. Ether delete it or if there is a list of Space Channel 5 characters article, put all the info there.--TONO459 (talk) 10:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom note regarding lack of RWC. RWC is needed for an article to have staying power. ThuranX (talk) 21:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and redirect - The character is not notable enough to merit its own article, but it at least deserves a link on Pudding (disambiguation). This article should be redirected to Space Channel 5. Neelix (talk) 22:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No real world context. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The claims of notability are not supported by the sources; and support for keeping the article appears to come mostly from the same person. — Coren ^(talk) 22:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Lee (musician)

AfDs for this article:

Procedural re-nomination after DRV produced consensus to re-list. See the DRV here. Black Kite 12:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no reliable sources, no proof of notability. The musician has worked with a lot of other musicians, yes, but what has he done? -Nard 12:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not appear to meet WP:NMG. Stifle (talk) 15:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails to meet WP:NOTE. NSR77 ^T_C 16:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am not convinced that this article does'nt meet WP:BIO guidelines and should be retained.As his career expands the article will, without a doubt, improve. There are alot of refs that show notability. He has an IMDB for the movie "Bikini Island" that shows clearly a song called Shot Down"written and featured in that major movie release. He also wrote and has credits, including a song called My Sin, for the Divine Horsemen records listed. This musician is obviously published and shows notability.He also has a major indie release coming out in november of this year on HepCat Records( the same label as The Stray Cats and Britney Spears) with his band The D.I.'s produced by Chuck Reed of Interscope Records and Billy Zoom of X. He also has records on several labels currently selling the records he's on listed and accessible from the wiki site. There is no way this is'nt viable.(75.22.70.179 (talk) 08:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Delete fails WP:MUSIC. No sources seem to support the notability claims. Even the IMDB source is a editable FAQ question so it can not be verified. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 16:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note Matt Lee has album credit and contractual credit for co-writing and arranging the entire Divine Horsemen record Devil's River. He did the same for the D.I.'s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.231.71.13 (talk) 16:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:Divine Horsemen-Devil's river liner lyrics-credits.jpg

note If you look at this file at wikimedia commons, this image shows the inside liner notes and credits for Devil' river, The divine Horsemen record. It includes Matt Lee's name and publishing credit for his and all other songs on the list under so and so/D. horsemen because the publishing was split for their contributions among the band.(69.231.71.13 (talk) 20:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Strong Keep He seems to have posted absolute proof that he's published with album credit alright.(69.231.71.13 (talk) 20:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]
keep, looks like there's some notability here. (Jayzee69 (talk) 18:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)) — Jayzee69 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia Jayzee69. Closing admin please take note of the prior sock issues with the prior AFD. (Checkuser case) Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 18:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ff m 12:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Point Rock, NY

Poorly written, no citations, and no assertion of notability. Musashi1600 (talk) 12:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/move to Point Rock, New York. Appears to be at least a former village with 140 years of written history: [12]. --Rividian (talk) 12:44, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Lee, New York. Per numerous precedents, geographical places are inherently notable, but not always enough to warrant an article of their own. This one I could not find in my McNally Atlas. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 12:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean by "numerous precedents" but I've never seen a town article , existing or historical, getting deleted. My Rand McNally Atlas doesn't show the town I used to live in, Tarzana, California, but that of course is not criteria for deleting an article. --Oakshade (talk) 23:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Point Rock, New York. Although sourcing is limited, there is a source (the article cites one EL) and there's ample evidence on the Internet that this is a real place (among other things, it's mapped on the various online map sites, and the satellite images show that it is still a small village). The online images of generic postcards sent from "Point Rock, NY" (at this link) indicate to me that the village of Point Rock had a distinct identity at one time. This place (like many other old villages and hamlets in the United States) may be of interest primarily to people doing genealogy research, but their interest alone gives the article information value. Merging it into the Town of Lee would not be an ideal solution, since this place does not seem to have been considered "Point Rock in the Town of Lee", but rather "Point Rock, New York." --Orlady (talk) 14:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Lee, New York, per Blanchardb. The article says that it's located in the northeast corner of Lee, a town with about 7,000 residents, and consists of a few houses and a closed bar; it appears to be a neighborhood in a little town in upstate New York, and there are thousands of neighborhoods in the boundaries Oneida County. The idea that there is a town called "Point Rock, New York" is fantasy, and need not be encouraged here. Mandsford (talk) 14:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Once notable, always notable. When a historical village is annexed by a nearby town, there is still interest in the historical village and its history. It is not necessary that the town exist today for there to be an article on it. See Carthage. See U.S. Geological Survey Geographic Names Information System: Articles for deletion/Log/2008 September 13 for the GNIS listing. --Eastmain (talk) 16:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - That it might no longer exist as its own "independent" community doesn't mean it's no longer notable, it means its notability is now of historical significance instead of current. --Oakshade (talk) 23:10, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep If it was an independent village at any point, it's notable. DGG (talk) 00:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn per changes made by Barberio (talk · contribs) and per one of the nominees being converted into a redirect. Non-admin closing. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 21:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Social Level Marketing

Contested prod. Speedy G11 was also declined. Original research. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 11:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating:

Tentative Rewrite and Keep - From a trivial Google search, Social Level Marketing does appear to be a real marketing technique now being used. I found one clear cite that it's now being used as an 'industry term' [13]. --Barberio (talk) 12:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It would need a complete rewrite, since your source talks about something totally different than the article. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 12:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - May well be, but we don't delete things for needing a complete rewrite, we turn it into a stub and mark it as needing work. --Barberio (talk) 13:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - And I've done the work on stubifying it, redirecting one to the other, and with two sources to verify it's a real marketing technique. Any objections to speedy closing with keep now? --Barberio (talk) 12:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - No. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 21:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 10:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Mak

This seems an obvious hoax to me, even though it has been around for almost two years. Grahame (talk) 11:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 11:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Information about this guy's greatness and eminence in the world of science is unverified. Reliable references were requested a year and a half ago, but none were found. Delete.--Lester 11:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 20:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Lester. Ottre 15:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a likely hoax. Unverifiable. Moondyne 09:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WorldExtend

Borderline advertising for (once open source, now commercial) software, with dubious notability. 9Nak (talk) 09:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is very "spamming" and turns up one passing mention on Google News. Because of this, I believe that the article fails company notability guidelines. — ^.^ ^{[citation needed]} 10:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 01:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete spam advertising, non-notable. The Man in the Rock (talk) 01:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (G11) — the menu consists of "Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam, baked beans, Spam, Spam, Spam and Spam." MuZemike (talk) 07:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable. Equendil Talk 09:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ff m 12:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Judge Karen

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

I find this article unnecessary on Wikipedia for now. First of all, it is hard to think of what to write in the article as far as the television series goes (although it is written like the person). Secondly, i see very little notability on the Judge Karen subject. Mythdon (talk) 08:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Like one actual news references, that talks about now this sad little show is yet another "Judge Judy" style show taking over the already crowded field. There is nothing to suggest that is article is in any way notable (plus it fails human notability guidelines) and it is so horrendously written I highly doubt anyone could find any facts in it. — ^.^ ^{[citation needed]} 10:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Just because it's a judge show doesn't automatically make it either a Judge Judy clone or qualify it for deletion because of a 'crowded field'. It airs on stations throughout the country and is distributed by a large studio, so the notability is almost automatic. Nate • (chatter) 00:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Reuters, ~~Yahoo! Finance~~ (duplicate of Reuters press release), and the Miami Herald have all noted the show's debut. It's a nationally syndicated program produced by a major company. That's not notability enough? Clarityfiend (talk) 16:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - and rewrite. There is some news coverage of this[14] --T-rex 18:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nationally syndicated program that has gone on the air and needs a bit more information, but definitely does not need deletion. Nate • (chatter) 00:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 05:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Verschoyle Patent Mandrel

The one reference cited is a family history book, with "Verschuijl and Verschoyle Family" in the title, and published by "Verschoyle Mason Publications". The external link is practically a carbon copy of the article, which would seem to show that either the article is a copyvio, or that the external link is copying the article. Google search turns up 31 hits for "Verschoyle Patent Mandrel" -wikipedia, however all hits are mirroring the wikipedia article (except one which is the external link, mentioned). GoogleBookSearch gives no hits for "Verschoyle Patent Mandrel". The article admits "The machine was marketed in 1918 but was never a financial success"... Also, note the only real editor to the article is LukeL (talk · contribs) aka 82.30.37.26 (talk · contribs) who stated "He is my cousin" in reference to the article, and gives his name as "Luke Verschoyle" [15].

No third party, reliable sources. Conflict of interest. No hits turn up in google except one. Possible copyvio. No hits turn up in Google book search, showing the subject has not been written about in countless published books scanned there. Celtus (talk) 08:19, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing to suggest notability, I did find the book referenced (here) but its self-published so probably doesn't count as a reliable source. The article fails general notability guidelines. — ^.^ ^{[citation needed]} 10:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 01:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete "never a commercial success" An invention that gets patented but not written about or significant otherwise is not notable.DGG (talk) 16:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Up North (book)

AfDs for this article:

Article was previously deleted at Afd, but DRV determined that the new sources presented in the course of the AfD were not properly considered. The concern expressed was lack of notability as demonstrated through reliable sources. I am relisting the discussion per the consensus at DRV but have no opinion of my own at this time. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep. The sources in the article, plus others found by Google News and Google Books, demonstrate notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Previous closure was premature. Clear notability established by sources. 23skidoo (talk) 05:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis of the material demonstrated above. DGG (talk) 00:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ff m 12:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jenny Mackenzie

this is not a notable person Himatsu Bushi (talk) 05:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think it is. There's a newspaper citation and she's on IMDB ([16]). Intothewoods29 (talk) 07:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Having an IMDB page is meaningless as IMDB doesn't pass wp:rs for establishing notability. I fail to see an actual claim of notability in the opening paragraph, which makes it speedy delete material. PHARMBOY (TALK) 15:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet WP:NOTABILITY. Kittybrewster ☎ 17:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think we can speedy this (although I'd like to) as it makes a very slight claim to notabilty. The article states that she is recognized in the area of social work for her accomplishments in doctoral research. However, this article still doesn't meet the notabilty criteria at WP:N. RockManQ (talk) 19:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ff m 12:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Minato mayoral election, 2008

Article on a single minor mayoral election held in Japan earlier this year. No indication whatsoever of wider impact, notability, or historic associations, nor is there even a single source--reliable or otherwise--even attesting to its very existence, let alone impact. Prod tag was removed on grounds that 'an event does not have to have wide impact as long as it has local impact and importance. Elections are generally considered notable in the locations where they exist'. I'd say that's false for a global encyclopaedia generally, and untrue in this particular case, considering voter turn-out was only about 24 per cent. CalendarWatcher (talk) 04:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (as on below AFD) Wikipedia:Five pillars defines wikipedia as including elements of almanacs and elections are one area which we should certainly cover. The content is fully verifiable and I am inclined to think it is notable in line with past precedents at AFD where elections for this level have been kept, especially for an area of over a 200,000 people. If the article cannot be expanded after a time then perhaps a merge into a List of mayoral elections in Minato could be considered but we should certainly keep the content. (The source should certainly be added to the article however for verifiability) Davewild (talk) 09:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Except that not even a minimal attempt has been made to verify anything, nor is there the slightest claim of--nor evidence of--said verification verifying anything other than that the election took place. As for your invoking the Five Pillars, 'elements of almanacs' does not mean every element of almanacs. Certainly in your citation you seemingly overlooked 'Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information...It is not a newspaper or a collection of source documents', which seem to argue against this being the least encyclopaedic, don't you think? --CalendarWatcher (talk) 14:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really believe that this is not verifiable and that sources are not available? I think a note to the article creator would lead to the sources being added to the article, if after a strong attempt has been made no sources are found then I would change my opinion. My quote about the almanac was specifically addressed to the reason you used on the prod and in your deletion reason above. Anyone could use the 'indiscriminate collection of information' to argue for the deletion of any article, this article has an intro which provides context for the results provided. Also at multiple AFDs the community has supported keeping similar articles on elections such as at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windsor municipal election, 1991, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philadelphia mayoral election, 2007, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kettering Council election, 2007, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stevenage Council election, 2003 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Birmingham Council election, 2008. Davewild (talk) 14:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have now added the source. --Jonte-- (talk) 15:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - to avoid systemic bias. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Systemic bias against what? Against triviality? --CalendarWatcher (talk) 14:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Minato, Tokyo. If you're going to rais the systemic bias argument, then please point out a comparable article that has been kept about a recent mayoral election in a location (US, GB, etc) where you think that there is no bias. Otherwise, it's equivalent to making an argument that we should be biased in favor of keeping an article just because it's about something that happened in Japan. Mandsford (talk) 15:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- there is a systemic bias here in that people seem to be thinking Minato's population is comparable to that of similar U.S. cities with over 200,000. In reality, the daytime population is over 840,000 (this was in 2000 [17] probably a million by now). If we regard a mayoral election's importance to be based on population (as people seem to be indicating), then this is clearly something that ought to be said. So it's a systemic bias coming from ignorance of population differences between a place like Tokyo and some place in rural America. --C S (talk) 01:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Davewild. A mayor election in a place with more than 200,000 people is definitely encyclopedic, IMO. And since there doesn't seem to be any problem of verifiability anymore I see no reason to delete it. It could however be merged into a List of mayoral elections in Minato like Davewild said, but the content should be kept. --Cattus ^talk 19:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep articles on elections. Do not merge into article on municipality. What we might consider is a single article on all elections for a single city. That is, remove "2008" from the title and put future elections in the same article with sections for events. Although I'm not convinced even that consolidation would be necessary, and having separate articles allows cross-categorization (by city, by year). Also, as the person removing the deletion proposal said, the significance is real. The voter turnout should not be used as a criterion for keeping or deleting articles. As for "No indication whatsoever of wider impact, notability, or historic associations, nor is there even a single source--reliable or otherwise--even attesting to its very existence, let alone impact." -- these are not requirements for Wikipedia articles. Let stubs grow. Wikipedia does not require that articles be born as featured, A, or even B. Wikipedia accepts stubs. Fg2 (talk) 21:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Consensus has shown time and time again that almanac info is worth keeping. Why else do we have articles like those on "towns" with a population of eight? --C S (talk) 01:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obivously. We have articles on much less important elections in the UK and the US, so why shouldn't we have this one? —Nightstallion 19:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the same reasoning I gave for removing the prod. It has been established in the past that people, events, or whatever which are notable within the sphere of their influence qualify for notability here on Wikipedia. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ff m 12:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fujimi mayoral election, 2008

Results of a single mayoral election in a small Japanese city this year. No indication that this is significant or historic, nor any suggestion that this could rise above being an almanac entry. Prod tag was removed on grounds that 'an event does not have to have wide impact as long as it has local impact and importance. Elections are generally considered notable in the locations where they exist'. I'd say that's false for a global encyclopaedia generally, and untrue in this particular case, considering voter turn-out was only about 40 per cent. -- CalendarWatcher (talk) 04:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia:Five pillars defines wikipedia as including elements of almanacs and elections are one area which we should certainly cover. The content is fully verifiable and I am inclined to think it is notable in line with past precedents at AFD where elections for this level have been kept, especially for a city of over a 100,000 people. I can't read Japanese so cannot tell how much coverage this got but am pretty confident that there is significant coverage in the link provided for notability. If the article cannot be expanded after a time then perhaps a merge into a List of mayoral elections in Fujimi could be considered but we should certainly keep the content. Davewild (talk) 08:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Except that only a minimal attempt--at best--has been made to verify anything, nor is there the slightest claim of--nor evidence of--said verification verifying anything other than that the election took place. As for your invoking the Five Pillars, 'elements of almanacs' does not mean every element of almanacs. Certainly in your citation you seemingly overlooked 'Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information...It is not a newspaper or a collection of source documents', which seem to argue against this being the least encyclopaedic, don't you think? --CalendarWatcher (talk)

I think the sources are fine for verfication, bearing in my mind that we do not require English language sources where they are not available. My quote about the almanac was specifically addressed to the reason you used on the prod and in your deletion reason above. Anyone could use the 'indiscriminate collection of information' to argue for the deletion of any article, this article has an intro which provides context for the results provided. Also at multiple AFDs the community has supported keeping similar articles on elections such as at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windsor municipal election, 1991, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philadelphia mayoral election, 2007, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kettering Council election, 2007, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stevenage Council election, 2003 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Birmingham Council election, 2008. Davewild (talk) 14:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - to avoid systemic bias. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Systemic bias against what? Triviality? --CalendarWatcher (talk) 14:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of mayors of Manchester, New Hampshire or any of numerous articles in Category:Mayors by city in the United States are equally trivial. Of course expansion to a fill list of elections would be approprite, but just because it's Japanese doesn't make it inherently less notable. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious Merge to Fujimi, Saitama. The "systemic bias" argument is a good point, and we should ask whether this would be notable if it were an article about a city in the US, Canada, Britain, Australia, etc.; It looks like a United States city with a comparable (105,000) population would be Norwalk, California. I don't think that the mayoral election in Norwalk, California, would be entitled to its own article either. For the most part, municipal election statistics are of little interest outside of the article about the municipality itself. Mandsford (talk) 15:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I choose not to add it to the citypage is that right now a user can get an overview of all local elections by using the Category:2008 elections in Japan, the overview will be lost if we merge it. --Jonte-- (talk) 17:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Davewild. Elections in cities with more than 100 000 people are clearly encyclopedic, IMO. And that seems to be what most other wikipedians think too, seeing as similar articles from the U.K., the U.S. and Canada seem to have been consistently kept. And some on places with even less population than Fujimi. However, I wouldn't oppose a merger to a List of mayoral elections in Fujimi, as long as the content is kept.-Cattus ^talk 19:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep articles on elections. Do not merge into article on municipality. What we might consider is a single article on all elections for a single city. That is, remove "2008" from the title and put future elections in the same article with sections for events. Although I'm not convinced even that consolidation would be necessary, and having separate articles allows cross-categorization (by city, by year). Fg2 (talk) 21:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Almanac entries are fine. Why else do we have articles on little "towns" with a population of eight? Closing admin should also see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Minato_mayoral_election,_2008 where many similar comments and arguments are made. --C S (talk) 01:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obivously. We have articles on much less important elections in the UK and the US, so why shouldn't we have this one? —Nightstallion 19:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the same reasoning I gave for removing the prod. It has been established in the past that people, events, or whatever which are notable within the sphere of their influence qualify for notability here on Wikipedia. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 13:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Presticogitator

Consists solely of a definition, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Somno (talk) 04:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article consisting only of a dictionary definition. Cliff smith ^talk 04:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Make this disappear before our very eyes From the article: "This word was first used by the magician Stuart Palm to describe his particular form of entertainment. He derived this word because many of the currently used titles, such as mind reader, psychic or mentalist, are misleading in some way from the direction he wishes to take his particular brand of entertainment. This form of magic entertainment involves memory manipulation, and reading the body language of the audience to achieve its goal." If you've never heard of the magician Stuart Palm, and can't find his name in google, you can find him in the article history Mandsford (talk) 15:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per WP:DICDEF, fails WP:V, or fails WP:N; take your pick. RockManQ (talk) 19:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete dicdef. JuJube (talk) 22:47, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete; not enough sources to support notability claims. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 05:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Diane Arkenstone

No sources, no evidence of notability. Does not appear to meet WP:BIO. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment "Official website" link goes to an 'under construction' web site - not a good sign for notability of the record label concerned. And if the label barely exists, one might doubt the notability of a composer on that label. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MadScot666 (talk • contribs) 04:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ff m 12:44, 17 September 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) 01:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

* Merge and redirect with her husband's page David Arkenstone--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 02:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:BIO is the wrong reference for this topic; the proper guideline is WP:BAND. It appears that the subject meets several of the criteria there--numbers 5 and 6, possibly others. The article is very stubby at present--it has neither the proper infobox nor a list of albums--but that is grounds for improvement, not for deletion. Freederick (talk) 01:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google has got a cache of her website. There are reprints of two interviews, one with New Age Music and New Sounds, one with New Age Voice. She also seems to have put out around 23 albums. She does seem to have a career independent to her husband. Tassedethe (talk) 07:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral, Ahh, I see they're no longer married. That might make a redirect weird then. Not encouraging of an independent article for her though is this quote from that second interview "Diane Arkenstone’s name has been associated with David Arkenstone for much of the past 10 years, although she has recorded four solo albums."--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 20:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 23:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to meet WP:MUSIC at least one way, but I'm finding no sources. Go ahead, keep relisting this stupid thing. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 00:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ff m 12:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chi iota kappa

Non-notable local fraternity, 24 Google hits, none saying anything. Speedy and prod tried already. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 03:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. No evidence of notability under either WP:N or WP:ORG. Nsk92 (talk) 05:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable, per nom. Ros0709 (talk) 06:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Gustavus Adolphus College. Mandsford (talk) 15:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the single claim is unsourced and fails WP:V, so cannot be merged, and unless someone is prepared to write a section on the fraternities there is no merge target. TerriersFan (talk) 20:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. appears to be enough to establish notability and absent the neutral, it's unanimous to keep TravellingCari 01:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Careers TV

Un-notable television show. Emarsee ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 00:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 16:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Neutral no evidence of WP:N but status of Canadian Learning Television is unclear to me. JJL (talk) 01:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Apparently this was syndicated on several national Canadian networks, which would technically satisfy WP:N That being said, there isn't a whole lot to this article right now, and if no more reliable sources can be found to expand it, it might be better off merged with an article about the program's producer (if one exists). Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 01:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Only one channel listed is national, CLT. --Emarsee ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 01:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mr.Z-man 03:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. Possible case of WP:OSTRICH. The point made by Mr. Senseless is that it's syndicated on several different Canadian networks, which together have a reach beyond a single regional area. CLT is a national network and it alone establishes notability as nationally broadcast series are notable. The article needs substantial expansion, however. 23skidoo (talk) 05:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While it's true that only CLT is a national network, the other three regional services, when combined, add up to something in the vicinity of national coverage as well. But even if they didn't, CLT covers the basic requirement per Wikipedia:Notability (media) all by itself, even before you consider that Wikipedia:Notability (media) allows for the notability of regionally-broadcast shows as well. Expansion needed, yes, but it's national enough to be notable. Bearcat (talk) 22:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 09:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saddletowne (C-Train)

Per WP:CRYSTAL we should not yet be making an article on a train station scheduled for 2011. Calgary Transit and C-Train are the appropriate places to discuss work-in-progress and plans for the system. The only sources cited so far are from the city government. When the station is complete, or very close to complete, we can make an article. I could see a justification for this article, if there was a huge controversy or something causing lots of coverage of the specific station. But, I'm not aware of it. It's just one of around half a dozen LRT stations in the works in Calgary. Rob (talk) 03:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Rob (talk) 03:44, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with C-Train for now. It's not WP:CRYSTAL if it's been announced by an official body - i.e. the City of Calgary - however it's still premature as construction has not yet even begun. 23skidoo (talk) 05:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. The C-Train article already mentions the extension. PK T 18:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 01:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete when construction starts, an article will be justified. There will then undoubtedly be suitable newspaper sources. Only a weak delete, since it is scheduled for 2008, but that does not necessarily mean it will actually start in 08. DGG (talk) 16:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. This has been here more than long enough. Stifle (talk) 09:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frontiers (non-profit organization)

Doesn't meet WP:N, WP:ORG, and google yields little promise. User:L^BPub 15:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree strongly, Frontiers is a notable international organization.--Alfredie (talk) 03:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Can you back that up at all? Leonard^(Bloom) 04:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find any non-religious references to the organization through google. --Regents Park (count the magpies) 21:08, 6 September 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) 03:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rewrite The first sentence of this article may be copyvio from this image and other places. However, they do have some news mentions, such as a January 30, 1995 article in The Vancouver Sun and another in a March 9, 1996 article in the Calgary Herald. There appears to be controversy surrounding the group, as mentioned in an article in The WSJ. They appear to be just across the threshold of WP:ORG; "Organizations are usually notable if the scope of activities are national or international in scale and information can be verified by sources that are reliable and independent of the organization", which can be verified in at least the above articles. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:06, 8 September 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) 03:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources to demonstrate notablity. We66er (talk) 01:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I could not find any sources through google, though admittedly the organisation's name is difficult to isolate and google certainly does not have everything but there are no Reliable sources given in the article either. I see that Mendaliv, above, has found some "mentions" but just because organisations international in scale are usually notable does not mean that they are. In the end, we still need independent sources to meet the core policies of WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR. If reliable sources really can be added, my suggestion would be keep and clean-up for NPOV. Otherwise, delete and create upon discovery of adequate reliable, independent sources. DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TravellingCari 01:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Legendmaker

Role-playing game. No suggestion of wide repute or notability, nor any sources other than a single Web review suggesting otherwise. Seems indistinguishable from an advert. CalendarWatcher (talk) 11:18, 3 September 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) 03:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, with only one substantial article anywhere. Even the official website has no mention of reviews or notoriety, which would be very unusual for anything that had such mentions. Also note that "LegendMaker" appears to be the name of a Chinese company. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficient coverage to pass WP:N. Nsk92 (talk) 01:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:44, 9 September 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) 03:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: obviously non-notable. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 08:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google searches would indicate this RPG just isn't notable. RMHED (talk) 22:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, as article does not establish notability of the composer. It also is a copyright violation of this website. While it may be that the article's subject added the material himself, this has not been verified. No prejudice against creation of a new article at such time as reliable sources can be presented to verify that the individual meets notability guidelines. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noah D. Taylor

Article does not meet notability guidelines. Noah Taylor is not yet a significant composer. Additionally, article may violate both Autobiography and Conflict of Interest guidelines. PianoDan (talk) 03:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete failing WP:NOTADVERTISING and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Three of his compositions were linked to places where you can buy them too... wonderful. Blatantly an autiobiography considering the article creator, Ndtaylor40 (talk · contribs). There's also copyvio on this page from the subject's homepage. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:20, 8 September 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) 03:19, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: obvious conflict of interest. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 09:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Dude, Where's My Car?. BJ^Talk 03:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Continuum Transfunctioner

MacGuffin in a single film. Not notable enough for it's own article. Unsourced. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 03:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete has no sources. Lego K^ontribs T^alk M 05:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Change to redirect. I created this article almost four years ago. I admit that it does not meet notability criteria and is unlikely ever to. Should be a redirect to article about the movie. ike9898 (talk) 06:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds good. Maybe include a note in the movie article about the KoL reference. That should direct anyone searching for this info to the right place. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 13:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's KoL? ike9898 (talk) 17:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom of Loathing, an online game. There's a reference to the transfunctioner in that game. I've never seen the movie. I've only heard of the item through that game. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 18:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Danzhu

This person appears to be a thoroughly non-notable figure, whose very existence is not verifiable. Unfortunately, the article does not cite sources, and is written in a legendary style. The legend itself is so short and so simple (Emperor had a dumb son, invented Go to entertain him) that it could just be folded into the Go article. TallNapoleon (talk) 05:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Inappropriate to propose deletion of an actual historical figure. Please use the article's "Discussion" page to propose improvements, in a constructive manner. Badagnani (talk) 17:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not clear that he is an actual historical figure, and the lack of information about him suggests that he is not important enough to have his own article. I'd say mention him in the article about Go, and his father. TallNapoleon (talk) 21:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It's normal for Wikipedia editors (especially those proposing the deletion of an article!) to actually do a Google Books search before proposing the deletion of an article on the grounds that the historical figure described in the article may not exist. I'd say it's clear that this editor did not do this. Please withdraw the nomination, do the research you should have done in the first place, and use that article's Discussion page to propose improvements, in a constructive manner. Badagnani (talk) 00:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Google Scholar has virtually nothing on him. Ditto Google Books. What little there is refers to a legend about an emperor inventing Go for his lazy son. The emperor himself is, according to one of the articles, "semi-legendary"--which means that his son's existence would be difficult to discern. Even if Dan Zhu was real, however, he is not notable, since he only appears within the context of his father's invention of Go. Notability is not inherited, and whatever the world needs to know about Dan Zhu can be in the article on his father, and on Go. TallNapoleon (talk) 06:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I just saw your sources on the talk page. In general, it is better to post such things on the deletion discussion. Many of these seem to be about the myth, and none of them seem to indicate that Dan Zhu was particularly notable. He is a very, very minor mention. Everything about him can be included in the article about his father. TallNapoleon (talk) 06:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the Go myth is only a small part of his (legendary) biography. The relevant search should be here instead. The potential exists for it to become a full article. _dk (talk) 18:43, 12 September 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) 03:12, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Could someone who reads Chinese give us a little clarity on what those books seem to be saying about him? TallNapoleon (talk) 23:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Records of the Grand Historian says that when Yao died, his non-hereditary successor Shun fled south and gave the position to Danzhu, however the people's hearts were with Shun instead, so Shun eventually became emperor. This indicates that Danzhu was, at some time, an emperor, if only for a brief period. I believe this is notable enough. _dk (talk) 02:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep emperors are notable, even if semi-legendary, if in standard sources. he is. We are not asked to decide the extent to which he is actually historical. DGG (talk) 00:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As an emperor he's inherently notable. Being semi or even completely legendary does not affect notability, otherwise we'd have to delete Robin Hood and King Arthur. Edward321 (talk) 05:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. This doesn't need to run for another five days. All these articles are unsourced two-line stubs which say "Country X have never entered this competition, but might do in 2009". Not in the slightest bit useful or encyclopedic. Black Kite 15:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Republic of Macedonia in the Eurovision Dance Contest

Sub-stub, little context. Tagged as A7 but I declined since it's not a bio, group, etc. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 01:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also:
Bosnia and Herzegovina in the Eurovision Dance Contest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
F.Y.R. Macedonia in the Eurovision Dance Contest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Iceland in the Eurovision Dance Contest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Malta in the Eurovision Dance Contest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Cyprus in the Eurovision Dance Contest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Belarus in the Eurovision Dance Contest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Armenia in the Eurovision Dance Contest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Albania in the Eurovision Dance Contest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
FYR Macedonia in the Eurovision Dance Contest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Israel in the Eurovision Dance Contest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 01:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Both of those articles have nothing to do with the countries performing in the contest. Each has two sentences; one telling about coverage of the event, and the other about how the might do next year. There's not much context or content in these articles. Delete both of them. RockManQ (talk) 01:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All of those are copies of the Republic of Macedonia's article, except for Israel's which has a couple of words more. I'd say delete all of them now. RockManQ (talk) 02:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of content. Ron B. Thomson (talk) 21:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep on the basis that other participating countries have an entry that is not contested here. We're not wasting paper with minimal stubs. Equendil Talk 21:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 01:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, totally useless. We don't have unsourced articles about things that could happen, it's that simple. Punkmorten (talk) 10:19, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. However, this article has existed for over three years with no significant improvement whatsoever, and no verification of its claims about the book, leaving significant verifiability problems. I'm going to be bold here and redirect it to Graham Hancock. The content will remain in the history if anyone wants to merge or even restore the article, but it should be cleaned up and should cite some sources if so. Chick Bowen 01:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talisman: Sacred Cities, Secret Faith

AfDs for this article:

Unnotable fringe book by pseudoarchaeologist Graham Hancock. No sources and violates WP:UNDUE. Was kept per "no consensus" in September 2005, but still only has one source which is the book's webpage. We66er (talk) 06:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Somewhat more obscure than the two books mentioned above, with just 188 Worldcat hits and very little of substance at Google News. Still, we might as well make some use out of it. Redirect to Graham Hancock. Redirects are cheap. Zagalejo^^^ 07:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - There are several gnews hits from subscription sources so can not tell the level of detail. [18] and the book is cited in the following books: [19],[20],[21].--Captain-tucker (talk) 20:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you add a few WP:RS to the article and demonstrate notablity? Five trivial mentions and "Psst... wanna buy a secondhand conspiracy" aren't convincing. We66er (talk) 21:49, 9 September 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) 03:11, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think WP:UNDUE applies here. If archaeology or architecture repeated the claims of the book and treated them as mainstream, I'd have a problem on that basis. But this article is merely reporting the existence of the book for its own sake. Same would go for Velikovsky. I'm not !voting keep at this point because I'm not convinced on notability.Ma^t_chups 19:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 10:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable piece of self-publicism from Graham Hancock. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- May one enquire what evidence there is that the entry was: A) created by, or b) ever substantially edited by, Mr.Hancock ? Or is your objection that Mr.Hancock has had the gall to publish a book ? -- HenriLobineau (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 13:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]

My point is that Graham Hancock writes a lot of books like this, so the existence of yet another one is not a fact which is notable independently from any consideration of his work in the general article Graham Hancock. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Stead

Non-notable person, a lot of the article is written as if written by the subject or someone close to the subject. No real claims of notability, no reliable sources, nothing at Google news. His two books are listed at over 200,000 and over 350,000 most purchased at amazon.co.uk. Corvus cornix_talk 03:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He certainly had a sizable following in his radio days and he's pretty well-known in the South Wales region as a journalist these days. His books sold far better in the UK than in the US and are widely available. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.226.3 (talk) 03:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I specifically looked for the sales figures at amazon.co.uk because he's British and so are the subjects of his books. Please also provide reliable sources for his notability. Corvus cornix_talk 03:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KeepHis book on Brian O'Driscoll was in the top 10 best-selling rugby union books for some time earlier this year, and remains the only biography of him that has been written. His first book received national press attention, partly because it was released so close to Dettori's Derby win. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.226.3 (talk) 04:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC) — 87.112.226.3 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment Both those are if anything arguments for the notability of the books (which are themselves pretty thin arguments - top 10 rugby union book for some time is hardly a great advert for wide notability). What's notable about the man himself though? I don't see much. MadScot666 (talk) 05:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Smells like autobio and no independent references are offered. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 16:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete after doing various searches I have to conclude that he doesn't meet the notability guidelines. RMHED (talk) 22:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BIO, very likely conflict of interest. Equendil Talk 09:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable (yet). Try again when he's got some secondary source coverage. TrulyBlue (talk) 10:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As far as I can tell, all the info on his page is true and accurate- he remains active and is in the public eye to a resonable extent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.2.251 (talk) 01:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment The above is the only contribution from that IP address, provides no evidence for its statements, and fails to address the main verifiable notability issue. Someone more cynical than me might have certain suspicions. TrulyBlue (talk) 08:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 16:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Jen

AfDs for this article:

Non-notable: blogger who was fired from Google in early 2005 for disclosing corporate secrets on his blog (without thinking about the consequences of what he was doing). People get fired for doing dumb things all the time: not much that's special about this one. No media exposure whatsoever outside the context of this minor event. Flagboy (talk) 06:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- subject not notable beyond this one event. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Blog. This is indeed a WP:BLP1E case. Despite a search (and there's a certain irony about Googling for "Mark Jen") it appears to me that the subject is not notable outside of this incident. A brief mention is at Blog#Employment; it could be expanded with this information. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added to Blog wht seems to be relevant, namely the circumstances of his firing, but not most of the biographical information. Flagboy (talk) 13:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: please note that the "Mark Jensen" article listed in the previous AFDs is not connected to this article. 23skidoo (talk) 15:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:39, 9 September 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) 03:07, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is a BLP1E case if there ever was one. No evidence of any lasting long-term impact. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Wizards_of_Waverly_Place#Characters. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harper Evans

A fictional figure of a minor show is Not Notable. Unreferenced. Should be merged back into main article Wizards of Waverly Place -- KelleyCook (talk) 16:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In addition I nominated the following related articles for the same reason.

Comment If you want a Merge, then that should be dealt with on the individual talk pages or just boldly done, not brought up for deletion. Edward321 (talk) 13:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, X clamation point 07:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of these minute fictional characters are the subject of any sort of third party coverage, let alone non-trivial third party coverage. JBsupreme (talk) 07:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 10:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 10:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - AfD is not for merging. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 14:57, 8 September 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) 03:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirected - Was bold and redirected articles to main article. Intothewoods29 (talk) 07:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite 22:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kaela Mensha Khaine

Article fails WP:SOURCES by relying on primary sources. Article was set to redirect to Eldar (Warhammer 40,000), but has been restored - deleting the article would prevent this happening again. -- JediLofty ^{Talk to me}_{Follow me} 09:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Plot summary and in-universe detail with no real-world information. Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject indicates that this character is non-notable. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 03:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Could not be more notable. Well sourced and also should be kept via the 5 pillars Testmasterflex (talk) 03:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not well sourced at all - it relies on Games Workshop material, which counts as Primary Sources. If it's so notable, I'm sure that lots of reliable sources will be added to the article before this AfD is completed. -- JediLofty ^{Talk to me}_{Follow me} 08:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No references independent of Games Workshop to demonstrate notability. --Craw-daddy | T | 20:45, 10 September 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) 03:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- excessively lengthy plot summary with no references outside of Games Workshop. Reyk _YO! 10:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Without coverage in reliable sources, it is just an unnecessary plot summary. TTN (talk) 19:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article should be kept due to coverage in a published encyclopedia. --Elisabeth Rogan (talk) 06:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Does it have any real-world information though, which is what matters for fiction articles? – sgeureka ^t•c 08:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - What do you mean by "real-world information"? --Elisabeth Rogan (talk) 17:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment- that encyclopedia is a primary source. That is, it's a source that is too closely associated with the subject to confer notability. For that you need reliable, independent sources (for example newspaper articles, scientific papers, critical reviews etc). This is one of our most important policies. If we didn't demand proper secondary sources, Wikipedia could become swamped with articles on all sorts of rubbish. Every blog, incoherent conspiracy theory, dodgy youtube video and adolescent fanfic would end up here and that would be a Very Bad Thing. That's not to say primary sources are useless. They can be invaluable in sourcing facts for the article and fleshing it out, once notability is established by other means. If primary sources are all you've got, however, the article will not meet WP:N. Reyk _YO! 08:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - This source is published and not a youtube video made by fans. --Elisabeth Rogan (talk) 17:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Doctorfluffy. It is doubtful that a decent article (i.e. one that doesn't violate any policies and guidelines) could ever be made out of this. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability in the real world, as would be established by coverage in independent third-party sources. In-game plot device. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of independent coverage in reliable sources. More suitable to a specialist wiki. Stifle (talk) 16:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. No assertion of notability (WP:A7). The speedy tag got removed at some point and was never readded. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Skyclad Records

Article does not assert nor pass notability Canis Lupus 13:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per A7, so nominated ukexpat (talk) 15:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There are several references to the company at this Google News archive search in the context of articles about bands on the label, including some about the difficulties for bands caused by the company's collapse. There are no articles there primarily about the company, though. --Eastmain (talk) 15:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 18:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:37, 9 September 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) 03:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN, RS. We66er (talk) 01:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was SPEEDY REDIRECT. Clearly not worthwhile content, but we may as well redirect it to the real content. Barberio (talk) 12:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

666 B.C.

Not sure of what to make of this. At first I thought it was vandalism (and deleted it as such.) Then I checked the names-- and they are close enough that I just demonstrated my ignorance. I think it's a hoax, but now I'm not sure. Rewrite and formatting are desperately needed if it is kept. Dloh cierekim 03:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as a hoax. Nothing scholarly uses B.C. in the last several decades--BCE is preferred. Nor are most dates in the 7th century BCE asserted that precisely. Heck, we can't even decide if the fall of Jerusalem was in 587 or 586. That, and the perpetually interesting 666 lead me to believe this is almost certainly a hoax. Jclemens (talk) 03:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I though of that. But we seem to be using "BC" instead of "BCE". See 600s BC. Not sure why we aren't using BCE. Alright, I'm clueless as to why. Dloh cierekim 03:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a mess confected from a copyvio of this page (paragraph about halfway down the page), a passage lifted without credit from this book, and an old version of the lead in our article Chronology of the ancient Near East. Deor (talk) 03:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. So I was wrong about the hoax. Dloh cierekim 03:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Copy-paste mess. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 04:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Either hoax or nonsense, or perhaps both? MadScot666 (talk) 04:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 13:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Void power

Rewritten from treatment of fact so may have been a hoax, seems like modern spin on chi balls, completely unsourced (except for the demo videos) Nate 14 81 13:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- Nate 14 81 14:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or possibly rd to Ch'i#Martial_arts; George Dillman's no-touch KOs may have gotten enough attention to be notable but this concept has not. JJL (talk) 14:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only sources are Youtube. Edward321 (talk) 23:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- Nate 14 81 11:04, 9 September 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) 03:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to vacuum energy... power from the void 70.51.9.124 (talk) 05:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It would make a great name for a laxative. Mandsford (talk) 15:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ff m 12:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Lost and the Damned

Article fails WP:SOURCES by relying on primary sources. Article has questionable notability - the faction does not have a codex (book that lists the army to enable them to be played in a game of Warhammer 40,000). -- JediLofty ^{Talk to me}_{Follow me} 14:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does this subject have any sources or notability outside of Warhammer? RGTraynor 17:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:35, 9 September 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) 03:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- More 40Kruft. As JediLofty says, this mob doesn't have their own rule book. This makes it unlikely that there exist any sources, let alone reliable ones, to substantiate this article. Reyk _YO! 05:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reads like a game manual. Not appropriate for wikipedia. --Kraftlos (talk) 09:30, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless there's some sort of list (Warhammer characters and factions?) to merge it to. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Chaos (Warhammer) - not notable --T-rex 18:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Warhammer 40,000 or whatever. Lacks real-world notability and therefore fails WP:N, also appears to fail WP:FICTION. There's probably a Warhammer wiki/wikia that would have it though. – Toon ^(talk) 20:44, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to University of Cambridge#Admissions. Just a redirect for now. Elements can be merged from the page history by interested editors. Per consensus below and obvious target. (non-admin closure) Protonk (talk) 01:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cambridge special access scheme

I nominated this article for deletion with {{tl:PROD}} on 2008-09-05 21:33, and this notice was removed on 00:13, 8 September 2008, but only beacause the article had been nominated for deletion before. I suggest that this article be deleted, for the reasons outlined below (these are copied from what I wrote at the article's talk page):

This article is not encyclopedic, and the information available here is not the sort of information which one would expect to find in an encyclopedia.
The information is out of date (for example, there is no longer a separate Cambridge Application Form).
It is largely a reproduction of the University's own website (copyright) which is kept up to date.
The information is unsourced, (in fact, one source could be given - http://www.cam.ac.uk/admissions/undergraduate/apply/index.html#csas)
Wikipedia should not serve as an out of date cache of the University of Cambridge website.
It should also not carry newsfeed-like information about present university policies, unless they are particularly noteworthy.
Information here may mislead potential applicants, who should properly retrieve information about admissions from the University's website.

A.C. Norman (talk) 14:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/merge to University of Cambridge#Admissions. The title is a useful search phrase and should be kept. Richard Pinch (talk) 16:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Richard Pinch. There is in fact one reference to the admissions page cited in nom, but the reference is not very explicit. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:18, 9 September 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) 03:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't oppose a redirect + merge as suggested above, but I've added links to a couple of relevant articles, in case anyone thinks otherwise (or so that they can be taken over with the merge, if they seem useful). I agree with most of the delete arguments except the penultimate one: the access scheme looks like a moderately noteworthy policy (it gets some reaction, negative and positive, in other newspapers, but mostly more tangential than the two I added). N p holmes (talk) 12:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support redirect as plausible search term. If the two newsarticle external links could be worked into the target article as references, merge them across. -- saberwyn 01:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as a hoax. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AMP Broadcasting Network, Inc.

Hoax article. This TV network does not exists. -Danngarcia (talk) 15:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete, hoax. Only Google hit of substance is a really fake-looking website on a free web host. Author's only other contribution was DWYG, a similar hoax article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Starblind is right. The site referred is fake indeed. Manila, where the subject is supposed to be based, does not have Channel 6 and Channel 10, as well as the so-called radio stations listed. I'm so scared of clicking the ads as well. Starczamora (talk) 21:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In addition to "Channels 6 and 10", "87.7" (the supposed radio frequency of its supposed FM radio station) is an FM frequency that can be reused for local applications (at least, here in the Philippines); it's the frequency that my home parish uses to broadcast prayers from our parish convent every procession. Most likely, it is a fake. I'm voting a speedy delete on this one, as it's likely a hoax. --- Tito Pao (talk) 07:34, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you want this article be deleted? We are only low power trust me! Don't delete this...it's our only way to be known by others. We really plan to upgrade our stations to broadcast in a more powerful signal so nobody can get suspicious when it gets into the internet! Please trust me!! If you won't believe me, okay go ahead! delete it! I'm not here to just bother you guys..I jst want our network to be listed in the wikipedia record even it is so small..trust me please i beg you..GOD KNOWS WHAT'S THE TRUTH!! Have conscience! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.127.184.50 (talk) 11:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because, for God's sake, what you (or the other (co-)creators of this article) wrote in doesn't hold.

To begin with, I can't find any such information (say, about an application to operate) at the National Telecommunications Commission website. TV channels can't just be created by will or claim that you (or your so-called company) owns the bandwidth for Channel 6 and 10, which don't exist...you need a franchise from both Houses of Congress, because only Congress can grant you permission to set up a TV station; specifically, there should be a Republic Act passed by both the House of Representatives and the Philippine Senate that says by virtue of the Philippine Constitution you are given permission to operate and broadcast a television and/or radio station. For you to claim that you are operating one such TV station but without the proper permits means that perhaps someone should be reporting you to the NTC so that you can be investigated for possible violation of telecommunications laws :P

87.7 FM is also one of the frequencies that is being recycled by RJ Jacinto's "wireless guitar" (which he often demonstrates on his informercials on RJ29, in case you haven't been looking), which makes your claim that your so-called company owns the bandwidth spurious; at best, you must be using an ultra-low transmitter that won't go further than your local barangay. Also, isn't 106 FM already allocated to TV5 (the former ABC5) and, incidentally, 107.1 FM in an Ormoc City radio station, as seen here and here contrary to what is written here in your self-published "source"? (And, oh, by the way, I didn't know that Blizzard Entertainment gave you permission to come up with an unauthorized/bootleg compilation of the Warcraft OST, as seen in this page. "God knows the truth" my foot...tell that to the marines.) --- Tito Pao (talk) 16:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you guys so selfish? Actually i'm just an ordinary 14 year-old high school student wishing to own such a network. PLEASE GIVE ME SOME CONSIDERATION!!!! Don't delete this article pls. Hindi naman masamang mangarap ah. Gustong gusto ko talaga magkaroon ng radio & TV network..bakit hindi niyo ba maintindihan? lagi na lang hinaharangan lahat ng pangarap ko...pilit nila sa akin nurse...ayaw ko naman nun..anu mapapala mo na dun? Sorry if i spoken it in tagalog because hindi ko na talaga matiis na sabihin sa inyo lahat ng nararamdaman ko...NAPAKADAMOT NIYO! sa totoo lng...minsan lang mangarap. Alam niyo pasalamat kayo may mga taong may gusto pang mag-ambisyon ng katulad ng sa akin! hindi tulad ng ibang bata diyan...walang ambisyon sa buhay.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.127.223.71 (talk) 23:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because, damn it, Wikipedia is not the place where you can fulfill your midday fantasies. This is a repository of verifiable and unbiased facts. The mere fact that none of what was on this article exists means that it shouldn't be here in the Wikipedia in the first place. (And please do yourself a favor by reading the policy and guideline pages I included in my comments' links). Mag-aral kang mabuti, pondohan mo muna yung pangarap mo, tapos saka mo uli gawin yung article mo pag talagang nmeron ka nang totoong network at radio station. Tinagalog ko na yan, sana naman naiintindihan mo na yan. (Study hard, earn money for your dreams and then come back here when you really, really have your own network. I wrote that in Tagalog, I hope you would get it this time.) --- Tito Pao (talk) 03:21, 13 September 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) 02:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain why this was relisted? The explanation by the anon above proves this should be speedy deleted as a hoax. Speedy delete, move on. Corvus cornix_talk 03:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It still can be speedy closed and deleted but you're right, I probably shouldn't have relisted it. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per G3, blatant hoax. RockManQ (talk) 04:11, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fanny Alger

With all due respect, I would submit that Fanny Alger is only notable for having been the alleged first polygamous wife of Joseph Smith, Jr.. Although she has been mentioned in secondary source material, it is exclusively re: the above noted alleged relationship with a famous person. I am concerned with the deletion reasoning that relationships do not confer notability. Alger was not notable for anything else, even including within the religious realm: she received no notable awards or honor, did not make a widely recognized contribution in any field, did not write anything that was published, or receive notoriety (or infamy, since the allegations were mostly made via contemporary rumors) for anything other than the allegation that she was the (secret) polygamous first wife of a famous religious figure, whom she did not live or have children with. There is also no consensus among historians that Alger was ever a polygamous wife of Smith, but that there is evidence she may have had a sexual affair with him (not a clandestine marriage) - this diminishes the need for an article even more. Alger herself never made any claims that she was married to Smith and refused to speak about the subject. Alger should not have her own article when she can be mentioned in others, such as the article on Smith, Origin of Latter Day Saint polygamy or List of the wives of Joseph Smith, Jr.. Wikipedia:Notability (people) states that if "person A has a relationship with well-known person B (it) is not a reason for a standalone article on A", yet "person A may be included in the related article on B", which is already the case with Alger. Lastly, I would note that the bulk of the article relies on three unreliable sources: a website with a newspaper clipping and two parts of a non-credible website - one now states merely LDS Archives, with no further info. Thank you. A Sniper (talk) 15:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Notability is not contagious, and unless there is any evidence that she is notable for any reason other than (allegedly) being Smith's wife, that doesn't meet WP:N. RGTraynor 16:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Fanny Alger is a well known figure in Mormon history, and is notable in that she is argued to have been the first polygamous wife of Joseph Smith. This claim is disputed, but even so, all Mormon historians know very well who this person is, and why she is important. If she was the first polygamous wife of Smith, then that marriage has a great deal of special relevance to the entire Latter Day Saint movement since it would have been the beginning of Polygamy and the Latter Day Saint movement - which ended up being quite a notorious affair. Other responses to A Sniper:
- I don't think WP:NOTINHERITED applies here. I can't help thinking about Monica Lewinsky, who is only notable because of her relationship with Bill Clinton, and that was only an affair, not an alleged polygamous marriage - surely by these standards Fanny would be notable.
- As far as sources are concerned - I put in the "LDS archives" because that is where the original letter that is cited is kept. It is absolutely a credible source. Alger is mentioned in dozens of historical books on the topic of LDS polygamy as she is a controversial figure during those early years.--Descartes1979 (talk) 20:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comparing Lewinsky, a highly public figure who has had biographies written about her, never mind mere tens of thousands of articles, with a woman about which almost nothing is known save for geneaological info, is a straw-man argument bordering on the baroque. Reading over WP:BIO, I see no criteria explicitly stating that being in a polygamous marriage makes someone prima facie notable. RGTraynor 18:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the user above points out the word if, which is very important...it isn't even known to any certainty that this woman was even a wife. And comparisons to Lewinsky? Lewinsky went public, she & Clinton admitted the affair, it received much media attention when it was timely - and Alger? She and Smith never admitted anything, information today is based on reporting of contemporary rumors, letters decades after the fact (or from disgruntled church rivals of Smith), and what one historian called speculation. But the bottom line is that Alger isn't notable for anything else - nothing - only that she may have been a polygamous wife. And as for the LDS Archives, there should at the least be credible, secondary source references to these letters, if they are indeed the smoking gun. A Sniper (talk) 22:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are dozens of reliable secondary references that cite this letter in the LDS church archives - including Todd Compton, George Smith (Dialogue article), Fawn Brodie - and that is just off the top of my head - as I said before, Fanny Alger is a well known figure in Mormon history - you don't have to look very far to find her.--Descartes1979 (talk) 18:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...and she's famous for what exactly...perhaps having been a polygamous wife of Joseph Smith? Even the historians aren't in agreement on this - even if they mention her in their writings - and she herself never stated that she was ever married to Smith. It is all hearsay, rumor, gossip - nothing to base an article on. Alger isn't notable for anything else - she never accomplished or did anything of note, including within the church. A Sniper (talk) 19:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nominators shouldn't also !vote rather than commenting, especially further down in the discussion, as this can lead to confusion.John Z (talk) 17:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While the nominator is correct that notability is not inherited, he appears to misunderstand what that means. It means that we cannot use mere mentions in sources that are about somebody or something else. We instead need substantive coverage of the actual subject of the article. I believe that test is met for Fanny. Yes, the coverage is largely about the relationship with Smith, as that is the source of her notability. Similarly, the sources about Alan Shepard are largely about his being an astronaut, as that is the source of his notability - but nobody would seriously argue to delete his article because his notability is inherited from the U.S. space program. The nominator also ignored the article's references section, which does contain reasonable references. The only real doubt about Fanny is whether she was one of Smith's wives or just someone with whom Smith had an affair. Either way, it is clear that the incident and rumors surrounding her had an effects on Smith, Emma, other Mormon leaders, and the future development of the movement. Simple google book or google scholar searching reveals plenty of material to support the current article. GRBerry 18:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Shepard accomplished something - Fanny Alger did not. The few references (that aren't noted as being dubious) elevate rumor, gossip, and innuendo, with no admission from the alleged participants. There has not been a single biographical work written about this person, merely references to something that may or may not have occurred. In every instance the writing is ABOUT SMITH, not about Alger, and Alger is mentioned in passing due to the alleged relationship. Whether or not any of this speculation had an effect on Smith or anyone else isn't remotely proven. In any case, there is so little to write about Alger that it could easily be found within the several articles that already exist on the wider subject of Smith alleged polygamous wives. Best, A Sniper (talk) 19:21, 10 September 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) 02:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep--although the notion of a merge to List of wives of Joseph Smith, Jr. raises some intriguing possibilities, too. Jclemens (talk) 03:12, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per GRBerry. I too think that the nominator is misinterpreting the "notability not inherited principle". The latter means that a subject is not notable simply by virtue of being closely associated to another notable subject. However, if the subject receives significant coverage (for whatever reason), the subject is notable. Fanny Alger is notable not simply because she was a wife of Joseph smith but because she received sibstantial coverage by independent reliable sources. It is completely unnecessary for the person to accomplish anything of note or to be remarkable in any way watsoever to be notable. The only thing that counts is if there is sufficient coverage or not. Compare, as an extreme example, to the case of Klara Hitler, Adolf Hitler's mother. She also seems to have been a rather unremarkable person, who, nevertheless, absolutely merits a WP article because of the substantial coverage she received. Granted, this coverage was motivated exclusively by the fact that she was Hitler's mother, but the motivation of sources providing the coverage is immaterial in determining notability. In the case of Fanny Alger the sources listed in the article already put this case over the WP:BIO bar. Nsk92 (talk) 05:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. BJ^Talk 08:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IM Model 3 Combined Assault Rifle/SMG

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/IM Model 3 Combined Assault Rifle/SMG

Somebody tried to AfD this earlier but didn't finish the process. Unbiased delete as this doesn't even contain a complete sentence or any sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as article is unreferenced and un-sourced. Except for a single picture (linked to a dead page), internet searches seem to circle back to Wikipedia as the source. — CactusWriter | ^needles 19:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - trivial coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 00:00, 13 September 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) 02:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as a hoax. I, too, could find nothing but what CactusWriter did. It's likely a photoshop job, the weapon would not be legal anywhere, and has no military use. Just because you can have an underslung grenade launcher on an assault rifle doesn't mean a submachine gun would be a smart move. Jclemens (talk) 03:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not the slightest evidence this even exists. Why was this re-listed? --CalendarWatcher (talk) 04:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete from what I can find online there are about half a dozen various unlikely looking "I.M. Arms" small arms. One discussion - here makes me suspect its a fictional company and weapons from an RPG of some kind - note one comment "Still, this gun has to find its way into my campaign. If I ever the characters out of 69 a.d." MadScot666 (talk) 05:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SIMA Peru

Claims to be one of the biggest leading corporations in South America. However, I didn't find any reliable sources in English or Spanish, so I believe it fails the notability guideline. Someone else tried to afd this earlier, but didn't finish the process. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. --Eastmain (talk) 18:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC) [reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. --Eastmain (talk) 18:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Keep. Lots of references at this Google News archives search. Most are in Spanish, though. -- Eastmain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) 18:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most of those seem to mention SIMA Peru only in passing. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:19, 10 September 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) 02:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a Google news and books search does seem to show notability. RMHED (talk) 22:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The "article" is nothing more than a translation and is suited for a dictionary, not an encyclopedia. seicer | talk | contribs 00:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mechutan

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, as per WP:DICT. The article appears to be a straight translation of an Aramaic word, without any of the usual material that would distinguish an encyclopedia entry from a dictionary. Prod was contested. RayAYang (talk) 18:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I responded:

Hi RayaYang, This word belongs to a group of words used by English speaking Jews; and this term is not just a word, but it represents a certain meaning when used. Perhaps it needs to be expanded to include its bigger meaning, but I just started it, and I'm sure eventually, someone will eloborate on it. It belongs to a group of (Category:Hebrew words and phrases) and (Category:Yiddish words and phrases), which has similiar words like: frum, Tzadik, Gadol, Da'as Torah, Posek, Baal teshuva, Kanai (Judaism), Tchotchke, etc. There are thousands of such words/terms in Wikipedia. I understand your concern and thanks for raising it. Itzse (talk) 18:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I already explained it above. If you think that "this" word/term merits deletion more then all the words of its category, then please look at all those words and explain the difference. Itzse (talk) 18:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Itzse: That something else also exists is not a good reason to keep something on Wikipedia. If the term has a cultural significance and history supported by reliable sources, then it may be viable as an encyclopedia entry. However, that it has a meaning when used does not distinguish it from every other word. RayAYang (talk) 19:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I've already told you that this word/term is similar to the other words/terms in that category. Do what you want, as I have no time or will to fight you. At the bare minimum, please ask some of the Jewish editors who use this term and they'll explain it to you. It is unfortunate that many here are too busy frustrating those who are contributing, and keep putting stumbling blocks in front of them instead of helping them. It looks to me that this isn't your language, so why take on this subject, when those who are expert in the English/Hebrew/Yiddish language are better equipped to decide if it should exist or not? I have no time to engage you on this, my time is precious; so do as you like. Itzse (talk) 20:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 23:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it's a foreign language dictionary definition -- Whpq (talk) 16:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Would you suggest that all such words be deleted? If yes, then I'll proceed in tagging a few hundred articles for deletion (maybe someone will wake up). Meanwhile we've only heard from two people who have never heard this word, and it's foreign to them. Frankly, I consider this unwarranted tagging, as harassment. Itzse (talk) 20:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply User:RayAYang has already answered this question earlier on. If you can establish that this is much more than just a foreign word, then please do so with reliable sources writing about "Mechutan". I can be persuaded, but pointing to other articles isn't the way to do it. Documentation with reliable sources is however much more persuasive. -- Whpq (talk) 21:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply How do you want me to persuade you? I've already written that it’s a term. A red link already existed before I got here, which says that someone else, when editing thought that this word needed to be a link. Look, both of you don't speak Hebrew/Aramaic/Yiddish, so you don't use it in your every day vocabulary. I think a suggestion to delete a word like this should come from someone who "knows" this word. This is going beyond "patrolling"; I think it falls in the category of "prowling". I don't think that the burden should be on me to "prove" that this word belongs in Wikipedia; I think it is the other way around, that someone who wants to delete it should do his research and then delete it. I have no time for this. I used to be a heavy contributor, but nowadays I occasionally get on and make some edits. It is wrong to request, that I should waste my time defending my edits. Again, a suggestion to delete such a word should only come from someone who knows this word; otherwise it is climbing on a straight wall. Frustrated, and for no good reason. Itzse (talk) 21:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply The burden of proof lies with the contributor. There is no patrolling or prowling going on here beyond reviewing articles that have been submitted for deletion. AFD is a discussion about the merits of an article. If as you claim, there is merit to this article, then you need to put forth the evidence. The article as it is currently written is very much a dicitonary definiton. I've looked for sourcing that might indicate it is more than that, but found none. And in the disussion so far, no evidence has been offered that it is more than a dicitonary defintion. -- Whpq (talk) 21:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply, I disagree with you as to who has to prove it. We have a major disagreement about this. Let me ask you; should I tag all similar articles for deletion, and get those editors to sweat it out to prove why those articles should exist? I believe WP should be a friendly place and patrolling should be discouraged, let alone glorified. When someone has built a house, the building inspector shouldn't come and ask him to tear down the house unless he can prove that it's sound, and should have been put up in the first place. Remember, so far we haven't heard from anyone expert here and on the language. Itzse (talk) 22:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - You can disagree about the burtden of proof, but an administrator reviewing this discussion will take those factors into consideration. As for the other articles, if you feel that they meet the criteria for deletion, then you may tag them for deletion, but it seems to me that you would be doing it just to make a point, which isn't a good idea. -- Whpq (talk) 22:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply, Correct, I shoudn't do it because doing it will be, just making a point. But that point is exactly the point that needs to be made, which is; why is this article any different from hundreds of similar articles? Just because someone found this article, doesn't make it any different, and if we need to delete this article, then why shouldn't we delete hundreds of similar ones?

delete per WP:DICT. Absence of references is telling; indeed it isn't clear what sort of references could possibly be used for a page like this. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:33, 11 September 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) 02:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - all we have is assertion that the term is significant, but there's nothing in the article, or this discussion, that backs up that assertion. All words have "a certain meaning when used". Unless this word describes something which is a significant or notable concept (and it sure doesn't sound like it does) then the article is purely a dictionary definition and not encyclopedic. MadScot666 (talk) 05:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And, as to the "other stuff exists", I just scannd the Posek article. It doesn't just offer a definition but an explanation and puts the term into cultural context - exactly what the current article does not (and, I suspect, never can) do.MadScot666 (talk) 05:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It does not seem to me that this term represents a distinctly Jewish concept. --Eliyak T·C 18:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. —Eliyak T·C 18:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the term does not represent a jewish concept, or a halachic concept, or even a cultural concept. There is no history or development of the term, or anything else which can be stated in the article that isn't already stated. Jon513 (talk) 18:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TravellingCari 01:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DS (Drew Seeley album)

Completely rumor-based and unreferenced. The "source" shown is Seeley's myspace page, which mentions nothing about an album title, much less a track list. The author of the article has made questionable edits, as has the author of the album cover image. A google seach on the album brings up this Wikipedia page and a blog entry (not reliable). Seeley's official website also gives no details nor confirmation about this album. I'm questioning the validity of this album and of the cover art. Would like to see it all go. - eo (talk) 20:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 22:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:CRYSTAL, no reliable sources or track listing. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:01, 8 September 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) 02:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and failing WP:V. The null google results for its label [22] make things look even more dubious. Given the absence of verifiable facts and its speculative nature, the article should be deleted. justinfr (talk/contribs) 17:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSIC#Albums (unreleased, no significant independent coverage) and WP:V. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 19:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to United States Academic Decathlon. Stifle (talk) 09:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alli Blonski

Subject does not meet notability guidelines and her mention in the USAD should suffice Million_Moments (talk) 20:12, 8 September 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) 02:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to United States Academic Decathlon per WP:BLP1E. no need for formal deletion. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would argue it is very unlikely anyone would look up Alli Blonski but a redirect is an acceptable alternative. Million_Moments (talk) 14:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 20:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 01:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete name is mentioned in coverage of the event, but lack of significant/biographical coverage. Redirect is not necessary as it is unlikely that people would expect an article, and there is only one link to the article from the main namespace. Content already in United States Academic Decathlon article is enough. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 20:21, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As the major contributor to United States Academic Decathlon, I'd say this is a rather unnecessary article (I didn't create it). Her notability will disappear when/if someone outscores her, in which case the article will have to be deleted anyway. - Yohhans^talk 00:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I believe a redirect is appropriate even with the low likelihood that someone would look her up. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is to delete all TravellingCari 01:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs by African, Asian, Caribbean and Latin American artists which reached number-one on the Eurochart Hot 100

A similar list like this was already deleted: This just seems to be a continuation. WP:NOT, WP:TRIVIA, WP:OCAT#byethnicity all apply. Bulldog123 (talk) 02:12, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 03:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominated:

List of songs by British artists which reached number-one on the Eurochart Hot 100

List of songs by European artists which reached number-one on the Eurochart Hot 100

List of songs by American artists which reached number-one on the Eurochart Hot 100

List of songs by Canadian artists which reached number-one on the Eurochart Hot 100

Delete all Non-notable intersection, poor method of sorting #1's. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 02:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - the very definition of trivial intersection. Not notable as independent topics --T-rex 18:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is a well random collection of information, while not indiscriminate, I don't think there's any real reason to have such a list, other than for the sake of compiling lists. Fails WP:N as a topic too. – Toon ^(talk) 20:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Either keep them all or delete them all The flying pasty (talk) 19:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uh. That's a little ambiguous. Bulldog 22:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedied under several criteria. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:47, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Chronicles of Narnia: The Exhibition

Advertising for some exhibition.

Apparent copying from text of exhibition's website

Carbon Rodney

02:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#G11 and WP:CSD#G12, as this is both advertising and copyright infringement. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 02:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per above (G11 and G12). Mr. Absurd (talk) 02:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete (G12) — blatant copyright infringement; a copy-and-paste from the site. Since is the third such !vote, I have boldly tagged it as G12. MuZemike (talk) 02:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Cirt (talk) 11:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Pruss

Found no reliable sources confirming his claims of notability. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Article was originally Frank pruss before redirect Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no refs, no mention as an alumna at the Juilliard school website, not a single hit on the internet, this should have been speedied. — CactusWriter | ^needles 15:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I declined to speedy this article because there was a reasonable claim to notability. It could have been speedied later under {{g3}} as an obvious hoax, if absolutely no references had come up. In fact, this could still be done, but now that I've interjected myself intothe discussion, I probably should not do this myself. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:05, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted as {{A7}} non-notable web content. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 02:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indivo

nn website Mow3212 (talk) 02:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Website fails to meet notability standards. As pointed out by MJBurrage, this probably isn't a speedy candidate, but nonetheless still fails WP:WEB. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCrimes

nn website Mow3212 (talk) 02:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, fails WP:WEB. Corvus cornix_talk 03:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as per A7. RockManQ (talk) 04:07, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The articles subject was the subject of multiple, albeit brief, news stories shortly after it creation, that makes it notable. I started the article based on the tail end of a piece I heard on the radio, because I could not find much (in English) and was hoping that another editor would be able to expand on the article. Admittedly it is still a stub, but that is not grounds for deletion, it is a reason to make an open request on the page for expansion of the article. Per Wikipedia:Editing policy, if we kill stubs for being stubs, they will never get the chance to develop into better articles. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 05:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Not for being a stub, but for A7/nn-web-content. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:WEB. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. A startup itself is not notable. But the site establishes an extremely undesirable pattern - poorly mediated, unreferenced claims of crimes that can eventually hurt people, businesses, house value etc. Someone must say the truth about "truth-sayers". NVO (talk) 21:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In other words, you're saying we should keep the article because the site itself is a bad idea? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - These are your words, not mine. I started with not notable, i.e. the site itself may be deleted uncontroversially. NVO (talk) 17:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yeah, but you voted to keep, yet nothing in your comment addresses why it should be kept, indeed you even admitted it was non-notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 23:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Despite being Brazilian in origin, the BBC found it notable enough to cover for the UK and NPR found it notable enough to air the BBC interviews in the US. That is good enough for me, and should be good enough for Wikipedia. After that there is still the issue of the articles detail, but that should prompt a call for expansion, not deletion. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 20:10, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The Number 1 criterion at WP:WEB says, The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. Corvus cornix_talk 20:52, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well "WikiCrimes -BBC" gets over 26,000 hits on Google (most non-English), so it is getting coverage, I just cant read it. I found it particularly notable that Brazilian site got English language coverage in the first place.
    The reason I created the stub in the first place, was that I came to Wikipedia to learn more, found nothing, and started the page hoping it would be expanded on by others. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 04:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - And how many of those hits are from reliable sources? Corvus cornix_talk 22:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Guilty of A7 violations. Ecoleetage (talk) 22:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Notability not established. The article is borderline spam, albeit with "sources". seicer | talk | contribs 00:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewcars.com

nn website Mow3212 (talk) 02:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - spam. / Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, fails WP:WEB. Corvus cornix_talk 03:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Obviously NN, no remaining value, I'll get someone to speedy delete it. —Sunday ^Note 12:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but not speedy. Borderline G11 spam, but the references means it asserts notability (even if there isn't much in reality) and it's just about enough of an article not to be out and out spam. Having said that, this is little more than an advert for a not particularly notable site. Pedro : Chat 14:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - References seem valid. The site seems to be small but growing with steady userbase. Their user reviews get distributed via RSS on Google and Yahoo, and they give expert interviews on different radio stations such as KOMO (AM). / Octaviusc 15:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Above user has only 2 contributions, both to this page. —§unday His Grandiloquence 18:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Pardon me, but I have contributed extensively in the past without registering. Octaviusc
Don't worry, I'll file a RCU for you. —§unday b 22:45, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 19:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I created this page and I certainly did not mean it to be a spam. The general public has every right to know some background information on small but useful websites. So I collected information from various sources that seemed credible and created this page. / bearing3k 17:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but you missunderstand what Wikipedia is about - what "the general public has a right to know" has no bearing whatsoever on wether it should be included. We're not a soapbox. Pedro : Chat 20:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I respect the inclusionist mentality expressed above, however, I cannot find any reliable sources to demonstrate this article's notability. It certainly exists and probably interesting and useful to some, but it simply does not meet our guidelines. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 20:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Non-notable company, especially one launched only a scant two days ago... seicer | talk | contribs 00:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Passionato

nn website Mow3212 (talk) 01:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 19:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Brand new companty, obvious spam. / Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, fails WP:WEB. Corvus cornix_talk 03:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the article: "...launched on 11 September 2008..." G11 if anyone is feeling bold. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if the site gets popular then the article can be recreated, at the moment it has no notability - Dumelow (talk) 15:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No opinion I created this page, after some thought, because it was of personal interest. My argument for notability would be based on the extensive news coverage. Many news sites covered the launch as well as the BBC story cited. Obviously such coverage could be transitory and the whole thing may fold up. I also think it is notable as one of the few sites dedicated exclusively to the download of classical music. The other thing I checked was wikipedia coverage of music downoad sites - there are quite a few here, and even a comparison page that I intended to update with data from this site (once I could actually log on to it after launch day problems). But, <shrug>, I'm not too personally concerned either way. I'm prepared to bet, however, that it will need to be re-created fairly soon. On another note, there's no notice of this afd on my talk page which is discourteous per WP:PROD. I also object to the "obvious spam" accusation. Even a brand new companty (sic) can be WP:WEB and I would hope that my edit record shows I'm not here to spam. Mcewan (talk) 21:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just one other thing. The user that added the AfD tag User:Mow3212 has an edit history that spans, as I write, about 11 minutes (13 September 2008, 03:58 to 04:09). The AfD for this page was made at 03:58 (no edit summary, by the way): this account's first ever edit. Fortunately User:Blaxthos spotted this 3 minutes later and was able to agree to the delete. Now please don't think that I'm whining about keeping the article that is the subject of this AfD, (because frankly I don't care). I'm thinking more about one of the complete newbies (who arguably write most of the content) who adds a (possibly questionable) article. If I were that person then, a) I get no notification of the delete (see above), b) if I look at the edit history I can only see a temporary account and have nowhere to go to discuss except here. Mcewan (talk) 22:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, all times quoted above are UTC+2 Mcewan (talk) 22:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Xy7 (talk) 02:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of celebrity Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu practitioners

WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:TRIVIA. Information of no encyclopedic value. Bulldog123 (talk) 01:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 01:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Practicioners notable within the community can be mentioned at the main article. TheMolecularMan (talk) 23:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —JJL (talk) 02:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with List of celebrity judoka (and see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_celebrity_judoka). JJL (talk) 02:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pass this on to deletionpedia; trivia is their specialty. VasileGaburici (talk) 09:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ~~SIS~~ 21:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This isn't even people who are famous for doing Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu. It's famous people who happen to have tried it. Ridiculous, trivia. maxsch (talk) 21:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. It looks like the consensus is that there are enough sources here to justify the article. Those with COI concerns should speak to the user in question or post at WP:COIN Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Easterns Automotive Group

No nontrivial coverage found. High COI as well--author is Eastern Auto (talk · contribs). Blueboy 96 01:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as being non-notable with no nontrivial hits. --Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 01:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources found establish notability, so keep. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 20:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The company passes the general notability guideline. See the references in the article for nontrivial coverage, including:
- Wilmeth, Katie (November 3, 2006). "Eastern Motors founder Bassam finds fortune with second-chance financing". The Examiner. Retrieved 2008-09-13.

Dyson, Cathy (December 19, 2007). "Fredericksburg.com - Car will help woman who's helping others". The Free Lance-Star. Retrieved 2008-09-13.

F&I Management & Technology Magazine - F&I Magazine to Name Dealer of the Year - Jan 23, 2007

The conflict-of-interest issues aren't grounds for deleting the article and can be fixed once the article has been kept. I added information about a lawsuit against the company under "Litigation". --Eastmain (talk) 16:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I still have a serious problem with a company editing its own article and now creating multiple accounts to add to the article or influence an AFD outcome. Additionally, I don't know if I'd classify any of those articles as non-trivial, except perhaps the F&I one. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 16:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 16:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability now established ukexpat (talk) 16:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient references to establish notability. The actual facts of the business were enough to imply it in any case. DGG (talk) 07:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. After discussing with Jerry. This has been up for long enough, and there's very little support for keeping the article. Stifle (talk) 12:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Krav Maga Worldwide

POV, Advertising, Censorship, Conflict of Interest, Threats. Major contributor is subject of article; Major contributor removes cited information conflicting with his/her point of view with no justification. Adbaculum (talk) 21:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A minor point. Yes, the author is tied up in this article. However, it has several references, which all check out, and the material you are trying to repeatedly add is both completely unreferenced, violates BLP, and are based on a very un-NPOV way of looking at the material -- and you are involved with this too. AfD is not where you go to clean up articles. It needs cleanup, not deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Logical Premise (talk • contribs) 02:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you still have those references handy, could you fill in some of the details on them in the article--title, author(s), page number(s) (for print references) or a link (for online references)? As it is, just the periodical title and month isn't really a full citation--the complete information would make it easier for other people who wanted to verify the references. Chuck (talk) 06:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If having refernces to USPTO trademark application numbers were the point of dispute I do not think outright deleting the section in dispute would be appropriate (I am uncertain how to properly cite a US trademark application). I am not sure clean-up is possible considering the obvious hostility of the author/subject of this article and the nature of it which is heavily nn. Also note the author's efforts to manipulate the Krav Maga topic to eliminate references to competing organizations and add his/her own. Also note the use of promotional outside links against Wikipedia standard of using links. It is my belief Author is using Wikipedia as a marketing channel which is not part of it's intended function. Adbaculum (talk) 04:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 00:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Trivial mentions, COI fluff. / Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Little or no context for the notability or significance of the subject. COI and reads like an advertisement. Wikipedia is not your web host. --Kraftlos (talk) 09:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional Delete I made a pass at resolving the COI and advert issues, but unless the references are cleaned up and clarified so they can be checked, there's not much more to do with it. The only one I can find, which is here [23] does not mention the company at all, and indeed predates its claimed founding by a year. gnfnrf (talk) 13:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The current, edited version of the article makes the remarkable claim that the US military contracts out the training of special forces in martial arts to this business. If true, this would make a fairly convincing case for notability. But that's the sort of double-take claim that needs more specific pinpoint references than what's given. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE Pardon my ignorance at procedure here at Wiki. Heres a link to a scanned recent letter from the Department of the Air force. http://focusselfdefense.com/sites/default/files/images/AFOSI-AST%20Letter%20of%20Commendation%20(small).jpg We have many such letters of appreciation please let me know if I can supply you with any more information. I won’t be adding anymore content to the page and I have only attempted to remove what we consider vandalism by rival factions. This information might also be of note http://www.cafi.us/post.htm regarding our work with law enforcement. The California Association of Force Instructors announced its using KMW to teach is 80hr certified Defensive Tactics course. Thank you for your efforts they are appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmwwinc (talk • contribs) 17:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment To best support the inclusion of the article, it should have multiple sources to non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. In order to verify that the coverage is non-trivial, your references should be to the specific claims that the source supports, and should be detailed enough that someone else can use the information to look up the source. Currently, the article has a number of sources lumped at the end, but it isn't clear what you think those sources say, and the references to them are too vague to easily check. Replacing those sources with clearly defined ones (including dates and page numbers in some standard style) would be a good start. See WP:References for good starting guidelines. gnfnrf (talk) 20:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Thank you for your comments and suggestions. However as an employee of KMW I really did not wish to write or edit this article any further based on some of the above comments stating I was biased. I think it would be best that a non partial individual utilize the existing material in order to sustain credibility to the content. Am I incorrect in assuming this wouldn’t be the best course of action? KMWWinc (talk) 06:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - That is very true. In general, people with a vested interest in the article subject should not edit that article, per WP:COI. However, what I am asking is not to change the content of the article, but to clarify the references. If you aren't comfortable editing the article, then just specifying the reference material in more detail on the talk page might help. gnfnrf (talk) 16:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 03:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Krav Maga while we are at it. Non-notable spam articles without reliable 3rd party sourcing which cover the subject in a significant manner. It isn't about the number of references but, about the quality and both articles fail on that. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Primal therapy (non-admin closure). RockManQ (talk) 19:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scream therapy

There are no sources to show that the term 'Scream therapy' is used in the way the article claims; it is likely not a recognized term. Shouldn't be an article on it if it is not a recognized subject. Skoojal (talk) 00:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Primal therapy as a viable search term. Most people looking for "Scream Therapy" will almost certainly be looking for that. Grutness...wha? 00:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. JJL (talk) 01:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
AAAGGGHHHHHH!!!! NOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!! Hey, I feel better already. Mandsford (talk) 01:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I lol'd. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 02:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Primal therapy as being related. --Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 01:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Screaming Redirect - yup. —Sunday ^Note 12:19, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The point of the article is to distinguish different types of scream therapy so redirection is inappropriate. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Screaming redirect - plausible search term. PhilKnight (talk) 13:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Note that this page was originally created as a redirect to Primal therapy. The editor who made it into its own article claims it's different. From the article... In many cases the term is mistakenly used in reference to Primal Therapy. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Was Bold and redirected to Primal therapy. Close this now. RockManQ (talk) 19:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Based on this discussion it looks clear that the article as it exists now is not a preferred solution, but as far as what the best solution is I cannot say. I would suggest that those interested in the future of this article work something out, be it through improvement, merging or redirection, so as to avoid a rehashing of this discussion in a future nomination. Shereth 18:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Non-Newtonian calculus

Not notable; furthermore, the primary sources are self-published. NB: The originator of the article identifies himself as one of the creators of the theory, so he has a WP:COI.

Clarification: I do not believe that a COI is a reason to delete the article. I believe that lack of notability is the reason to delete the article. I further believe that lack of notability is well-established by the lack of references to the concept in mathematical journals which I demonstrate below. Ozob (talk) 22:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Ozob (talk) 00:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete well-attested in books [24], [25], [26] and seen in a journal [27] , but it seems largely associated with Jane Grossman, Michael Grossman, and Robert Katz, and the books seem to be from little-known or vanity publishers. JJL (talk) 01:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article creator has posted in opposition to the nomination at my talk page. See User talk:Ozob#Citation, reviews, and comments re "Non-Newtonian Calculus". Ozob (talk) 01:07, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:OR. / Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mathematical analysis — having studied in the field of mathematics, this seems like an alternate term for the subject mathematical analysis, which is a rigorous formalization and study of the basic concepts of calculus developed by Newton, Leibniz, etc. MuZemike (talk) 02:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A legitimate and respectable journal, the Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications, has published a paper on this subject, not written by Grossman or Katz. The abstract for the paper reads as follows:

Two operations, differentiation and integration, are basic in calculus and analysis. In fact, they are the infinitesimal versions of the subtraction and addition operations on numbers, respectively. In the period from 1967 till 1970 Michael Grossman and Robert Katz gave definitions of a new kind of derivative and integral, moving the roles of subtraction and addition to division and multiplication, and thus established a new calculus, called multiplicative calculus. In the present paper our aim is to bring up this calculus to the attention of researchers and demonstrate its usefulness.

The JMAA article also cites the Lee Press book and an article in the (legitimate) journal Primus. I conclude that the subject is not OR, in the Wikipedia sense: WP:OR says "'Original research' is material for which no reliable source can be found." I also fail to see any conflict of interest in the article as written. -- Dominus (talk) 02:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it still seems non-notable to me. No one uses or teaches this--it's an intellectual diversion of the "What If?" variety. It's not akin to Infinitesimal calculus. Certainly, the term non-Newtonian calculus is not in general use among mathematicians, the way one discusses non-Newtonian fluids. JJL (talk) 03:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the name is wrong, the article can be moved. -- Dominus (talk) 03:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I thought this was about Leibniz, from the title, or Japanese calculus, Archimedean calculus or somesuch, perhaps a dab page is required as well. 05:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.9.124 (talk)
Keep Per Dominus and other independent references in article. I note the JMAA paper says submitted by Steven G. Krantz, not at all someone who I think would endorse in any way strange, speculative or fringy stuff. The problem is there is not enough mathematics in the article to really understand what it is, whether it something really novel, which I have my doubts about. But even if it isn't, further research and reading of the refs (which make it satisfy the notability criterion in any case) would be necessary for figuring out what to eventually redirect it to. The quotes about it on Ozob's talk page from Arrow, Boas, Grattan-Guinness and Struik lend some real support from some big names.John Z (talk) 10:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the Talk page comments also appear here [28]. The Talk page comments make clear the WP:COI issue, as smithpith who created and has primarily edited the article is identified as Michael Grossman. I have "The Rainbow of Math." to hand. On pg. 332 is a footnote mentioning Grossman and Katz 1972 as having developed on a 1754 comment by Besicovitch. But pg. 774 is in the Bibliography and is just the actual citation for Grossman and Katz 1972. This is only one reference to Grossman and Katz in a footnote plus its Bib. entry. The terms "non-Newtonian" and "bigeometric" do not appear in the footnote; the former is in the book title in the Bib. I still feel this is one person pushing his somewhat WP:FRINGE-y theory (correct, I'm sure, but far off the mainstream). Which of the Grossman books is from a reputable, non-vanity press? I don't think policy is that every technical term used in a journal or book merits a page. JJL (talk) 15:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Stinks of OR, but has book references. I'm gonna have to go with delete. —Sunday ^Note 12:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can I remind you that this is supposed to be a discussion, not a vote? -- Dominus (talk) 19:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Since the discussion seems to hinge on whether or not the article's content is notable, perhaps it would be worthwhile to quote from Mathematical Reviews. The review of the first reference, "Multiplicative calculus and its applications", says after a one-sentence description of the article:

"...you are left with some avatar of the classical calculus to unfold. The authors of this original paper do play this game. Their stated purpose is to promote this new kind of multiplicative calculus. The work is entertaining, but not fully convincing."

User:JJL has described the relevant portions of the second reference, the Grattan-Guinness book. The third reference, Grossman and Katz's Non-Newtonian Calculus, did not receive a proper review; it was indexed, but the review is an extract from the preface and a listing of the table of contents. Finally, the fourth reference was not indexed by Math Reviews.

Plugging "Non-Newtonian calculus" into the "Anywhere" field of MathSciNet turns up three references: The above-mentioned book of Grossman and Katz, the book The first systems of weighted differential and integral calculus by Grossman, Jane; Grossman, Michael; Katz, Robert, pub. Archimedes Foundation, Rockport, Mass., 1980. vi+55 pp., and the book The first nonlinear system of differential and integral calculus by Grossman, Michael, pub. MATHCO, Rockport, Mass., 1979. xi+85 pp. I think it's instructive to quote from the review of the last book:

"The system in question is based on a "derivative" of $f$ equal to $\exp{(\ln f)'}$, where the prime indicates the conventional derivative. ... It is not yet clear whether the new calculus provides enough additional insight to justify its use on a large scale."

The only one of these works which has received any citations is Non-Newtonian Calculus: There's the first reference given in the article and self-citations.

Similarly plugging "Non-Newtonian calculus" into Zentralblatt gives three references: The first reference of the article, the book of Grossman-Katz, and the book of Grossman. Ozob (talk) 20:54, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. I'm glad this has come up for deletion because ironically the topic has thereby caught my attention. This topic has been referred to in a mathematical journal, so it's notable enough as far as I'm concerned. So what if this is a "what if?" kind of thing? The usefulness remains to be seen, but wikipedia is not just for practical information. The word 'fringe-y' theory is mentioned above but the word fringe describes theories held by a small minority which contradict widely accepted theories and are thus rejected, however that is not the case here. This does not contradict anything, it is simply not widely known about. The word fringe does not apply. There may be a so-called COI, but really that just means the article should be subjected to close scrutiny. It is not a reason for deletion. Wikipedia would be a very much poorer place if articles like this are deleted. The fact that it has been referred to in a journal means that WP:OR does not apply. Delaszk (talk) 12:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Since when was WP:COI a reason for deleting an article? Okay, it is a reason for impartial editors to remove promotional and/or non-encyclopedic information from the article with extreme prejudice, but as long as the subject meets WP:NOTABILITY, we don't delete the article itself.

This article is about a rather trivial idea (conjugating calculus with an invertible function such as the exponential function) but it is an idea that has been published and cited, and an idea that some qualified people have stated may be useful in some situations. Since the main examples seem to be the "geometric" calculus (exponential function) and "bigeometric" calculus (power functions), we could consider moving the article to multiplicative calculus which appears to be a term with some currency beyond the work of Grossman et al. Geometry guy 13:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If kept, I will support the move; but I would delete it, as a triviiality. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plugging the term "multiplicative calculus" into MathSciNet produces two reviews: The J. Math. Anal. Appl. article with Turkish authors that is citation number 1 in the article, and Glickfeld, Barnett W., The theory of analytic functions in commutative Banach algebras with involution. Ann. Mat. Pura Appl. (4) 86 1970 61--77. The latter article is about interpreting the Cauchy-Riemann equations for maps C → B, where B is a Banach algebra (with certain restrictions); the author calls this "multiplicative" calculus (quotes in original) and says it is "so-called because the differentiability of a function depends on the multiplication in $B$". On Zentralblatt, "multiplicative calculus" produces only the J. Math. Anal. Appl. article. Ozob (talk) 22:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I support moving to a less pretentious name, but keeping and sorting out COI issues. But is there a better article to be written under this title (which could link to wherever this one goes)? Richard Pinch (talk) 22:24, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Michael Grossman:

The mathematical community's reception of non-Newtonian calculus has been lukewarm. Naturally the subject has little appeal to mathematicians engrossed in the abstract realms of modern mathematics. Nevertheless enthusiastic interest has been expressed by some mathematicians, and by many scientists and engineers.

Robert Katz and I met personally with Dirk Struik and with Ivor Grattan-Guinness, both of whom were quite optimistic about the possibilities opened-up in science by non-Newtonian calculus. Professor Grattan-Guinness wrote: "There is enough here [in Non-Newtonian Calculus] to indicate that non-Newtonian calculi ... have considerable potential as alternative approaches to traditional problems. This very original piece of mathematics will surely expose a number of missed opportunities in the history of the subject."

In Mathematical Reviews Ralph P. Boas, Jr. made the following two assertions: 1) It is not yet clear whether the geometric calculus provides enough additional insight to justify its use on a large scale. 2) It seems plausible that people who need to study functions from this point of view might well be able to formulate problems more cleary by using bigeometric calculus instead of classical calculus. Clearly Professor Boas understood that: a) non-Newtonian calculus does provide alternatives to the classical calculus, b) non-Newtonian calculus does provide additional insight, and c) non-Newtonian calculus can be used to simplify formulations.

David Pearce MacAdam reviewed "Non-Newtonian Calculus" in the Journal Of The Optical Society Of America. Here is an excerpt: "This [Non-Newtonian Calculus] is an exciting little book. ... The greatest value of these non-Newtonian calculi may prove to be their ability to yield simpler physical laws than the Newtonian calculus. Throughout, this book exhibits a clarity of vision characteristic of important mathematical creations. ... The authors have written this book for engineers and scientists, as well as for mathematicians. ... The writing is clear, concise, and very readable. No more than a working knowledge of [classical] calculus is assumed." Clearly, Professor MacAdam (probably a physicist) is also optimistic about the possibilities of using non-Newtonian calculus in scientific work.

The omission by Wikipedia of information about non-Newtonian calculus would be a disservice to the scientific community. Non-Newtonian calculus IS a mathematical theory that provides scientists, engineers, and mathematicians with alternatives to the classical calculus of Newton and Leibniz.

I thank you all for your interest and consideration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.166.238.187 (talk) 00:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A search of google scholar shows that "multiplicative calculus" is used in several different contexts to mean different things so I would oppose any renaming. Moreover there are an infinite number of these non-newtonian calculi and the term "multiplicative calculus" is not appropriate for all of them, rather a new article should be created to cover "multiplicative calculus" (what G and K call "geometric calculus"). Delaszk (talk) 08:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I left out Google Scholar before, since Mathematical Reviews/MathSciNet and Zentralblatt are the authoritative indices of published mathematical work. But since Google Scholar has been mentioned, I figured that I may as well look and see what "Non-Newtonian calculus" turns up there. I get:

Grossman and Katz, "Non-Newtonian Calculus"
Grossman, "Averages: A New Approach"
Grossman, "An introduction to non-Newtonian calculus"
Grossman and Katz, "Isomorphic calculi", International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science …, 1984 - Taylor & Francis
A review of Grossman and Katz, "Non-Newtonian Calculus" by Karel Berka in Theory and Decision, vol. 6, no. 2, May 1975. Those with Springerlink access can read it here.
The Bashirov, Kurpınar, and Özyapıcı article.
"BOOK NOTES", T de Chardin, F le Lionnais… - Philosophia Mathematica - Oxford Univ Press. I can't figure out what this is--there's no link, and besides Teilhard de Chardin was a philosopher and theologian.
Grossman, J., and Grossman, M., Dimple or no dimple, The Two-Year College Mathematics Journal, Vol. 13, No. 1 (Jan., 1982), pp. 52-55, an expository article on limaçons. Non-Newtonian calculus is only mentioned in the brief author bios at the beginning.
Advertisements:
- Science News, Vol. 118, No. 25/26 (Dec. 20-27, 1980), p. 393. [29].
- Science News, Vol. 118, No. 5 (Aug. 2, 1980), p. 78 [30].
- Science News, Vol. 119, No. 2 (Jan. 10, 1981), p. 30 [31].
- Science News, Vol. 118, No. 24 (Dec. 13, 1980), p. 382 [32].
A listing in "Books received"/"Publications received"/"Libri ricevuti" from
- Theory and Decision, December 1972. See [33].
- Australian & New Zealand Journal of Statistics, vol. 15, no. 3. See [34].
- Il Nuovo Cimento A, August 1972. See [35].
Grossman, J., Grossman, M., and Katz, R., Which growth rate?, International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 151-154. See [36].

So only one non-self-citation in over 30 years. The citation by Meginniss which is presently the article's first reference makes two non-self-citations in 30 years.

To be honest, I'm rather surprised that this article has received any support at all. To me it seems obvious from the lack of scholarly references that this concept is not notable. I also note that all of the positive comments are of the form, "This may be useful." So far as I know nobody has actually shown that it is useful, hence the lack of interest! Ozob (talk) 22:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase "Non-Newtonian calculus" was invented by Grossman and Katz, but the concept of alternative differentiation operators is an old idea. I have added some references in the history section of the article to earlier work. Delaszk (talk) 07:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The topic is notable per the references and reviews already mentioned and here's another: "Bigeometric Calculus" and "Averages" are both reviewed in The Mathematical Gazette, Vol. 68, No. 443 (Mar., 1984), pp. 70-71 Delaszk (talk) 08:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The idea of conjugating the differentiation operator by the exponential function (or some other useful function) sounds interesting to me. Of course it is a very simple idea: other things being equal, the simpler an idea, the better! I don't personally think it's necessary that non-Newtonian calculus (agreed that the name is a poor one, BTW) have some specific successes or applications in order to be kept as a wikipedia article. But the fact that at least one scientist has used this theory in their work makes the decision to keep an easy one. As an aside, the fact the claim of original research has been made here indicates to me that the concept of OR in mathematical articles needs clarification. Would anyone like to take this up on the wikiproject mathematics discussion page? Plclark (talk) 19:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are arguing that because the idea is interesting, the article should be kept. This is contrary to the instructions at WP:INTERESTING, which note, "personal interest or apathy is not a valid reason to keep or delete an article". The issue is whether the article is notable. That the idea may be interesting or useful is irrelevant; things like journal citations are. While several others here have noted that they, too, find the idea interesting, they have also said that they believe the very small number of citations the work has received are enough to establish notability. (I disagree; that's my entire reason for bringing this AfD.) If you think those citations suffice to establish notability, then go ahead and argue for keep. But please don't argue for keep on the basis of personal interest. Ozob (talk) 17:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- There is no confusion here about what constitutes OR in math articles. It was published in a perfectly good journal. Thus it is not OR, according to WP:OR. Although perhaps the OR claim was first raised by the nomination's claim of only self-published sources existing, that ceased to be a point of contention when non-self-published sources were found and now the only point under dispute is notability. --C S (talk) 01:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Clarification from Michael Grossman:

It is true that the geometric calculus can be obtained by "conjugating with the exponential function". However, infinitely many non-Newtonian calculi can NOT be obtained by "conjugating with an invertible function". For example, the bigeometric calculus can NOT be obtained that way. Smithpith (talk) 23:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. Going from experience, the Primus and JMAA cites are enough to instill a marginal notability here, which is probably why people are saying "keep". But it's marginal, so whether I feel it's worth keeping really depends on my mood, and right now, I don't particularly care. Also going from experience, if the COI problems get too troublesome, marginality isn't really a good defense against a future deletion. That happens too, when people get too tired of policing the article. --C S (talk) 01:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If kept, remove from any mathematical categories, including Category:Calculus. Whatever it may be, it isn't mathematics. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How do you figure that? I don't understand. -- Dominus (talk) 17:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete. The lead paragraph clearly states that "geometric calculus was the first non-Newtonian calculus". The author admits in the discussion above that geometric calculus amounts to conjugating by the log. Now we all know why adders need a log. It is nice for the derivative to be multiplicative, but declaring this to be a mathematical theory, with Newton's name attached to it to boot, seems a bit of an obfuscation. Katzmik (talk) 16:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep Snowball close. NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 01:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Bonchurch

Wikipedia shouldn't have an article about a relatively minor battle. OpenSeven (talk) 00:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Battle doesn't seem to be that minor. Appears to have been significant in the context of the war it forms part of - article suggests that rsult of battle determined subsequent French actions re invasion of England/Isle of Wight. Isle of Wight generally considered part of England - battle part of campaign which is one of very few to feature uropean troops successfully landing on English soil. Also, casualty numbers, though unclear, are stated as "heavy" out of c.1000 troops engaged. Several hundred casualties seems likely. In the context of armies of the day, hardly an inconsequential number. MadScot666 (talk) 00:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Any particular reason why it shouldn't, OS? It was a real historical event, still known about close to half a millennium later, and the result of the battle was an important moment in history. Grutness...wha? 00:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "Relatively minor battle" is a strange phrase, this was a real battle between national armies, not a fight between football hooligans.--Grahame (talk) 01:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia should have an article on a relatively minor battle. We aren't a paper encyclopedia, we have no need to exclude stuff that's notable but not notable "enough". As long as it really was a battle and we have encyclopedic information on it, it's fine. --Rividian (talk) 01:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 01:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep The nomination doesn't state that the article is in violation of any guidelines and the article is well cited to reliable sources. Nick Dowling (talk) 01:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wikipedia should have articles on minor battles. Corvus cornix_talk 01:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well-cited, meets WP:N, no problems here. In general, I think that anything that has made it to C-class is ok.--Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 01:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep so long as we are convinced that it is a real historical battle and not a hoax with made-up references like the Upper Peninsula War. Edison (talk) 01:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ff m 12:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cattle coding

Non notable or made up term, no google hits or sources Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, it's used as the opposite of cowboy coding - and there are quite a lot of sources for that term. But this one seems to be made up. DS (talk) 00:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This term is used in other countries (in different languages), see snitko's comment:

http://www.robertnyman.com/2008/04/04/favorite-terms-about-web-developers/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.112.68 (talk) 00:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Yup. Not notable, no strong pull against deletion. Could we possibly transwiki to wiktionary? —Sunday ^Note 12:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -Remove reference to it from Cowboy Coding and delete IMHO, unless google searches etc. yield that the term is in standard use. Sounds like it should be, but it isn't :D --90.212.22.241 (talk) 14:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This term should appear on google, but it doesn't, with the first page entries usually being obscure entries about bovine DNA. JASpencer (talk) 17:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. PhilKnight (talk) 20:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of stage mothers

If this deemed a necessary or useful description, then a category could be created. At the moment this list implies there is something wrong with the living people mentioned. PhilKnight (talk) 13:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 19:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't think the list implies that there's something wrong with a "stage mother"; it's a common enough term for the parent of a child actor who looks after the interests of her child. Perhaps the problem is the title, although there seem to be more stage mothers than stage fathers, such as Kit Culkin. Granted, there are some cases where an actor's parents have exploited the child, particularly in the case of Jackie Coogan, but more commonly, their role is to prevent exploitation and to protect the child's right to have as normal a life as possible. The list doesn't comment on how they've done their jobs, so there's no BLP concern here. One can go to the "Jaid Barrymore" article to find stories like that. The number of blue links shows that may of these women are notable in their own right. Mandsford (talk) 15:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I am puzzled how this list a violation of BLP. Being a stage mother is nothing bad, child acting is not any kind of illegal child labor, thus BLP has nothing to do here. The list should be referenced and improved. Lists are meant to complement categories per WP:CLN. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment, the article says "There is sometimes a negative connotation for the term, sometimes implying a mother who exerts unreasonable demands for the child's treatment, or puts undue pressure on the child, or who may take advantage of the child's income or notoriety for her own selfish purposes." PhilKnight (talk) 20:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Poof!! That sentence is now gone. Mandsford (talk) 20:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of software moguls

If this deemed a necessary or useful description, then a category could be created. At the moment, this is unsourced original reasearch. PhilKnight (talk) 13:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 19:44, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looks like a holdover from the early days of Wikipedia (2004), when phrases like "software moguls" seemed encyclopedic. I think the list is superseded by List of the 100 wealthiest people and a redirect there would be OK. Mandsford (talk) 15:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, I think a redirect there would be ok. PhilKnight (talk) 20:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Due to the fact that "software mogul" is an ambiguous designation, any inclusion criteria for this list would necessarily be subjective, arbitrary, or both. I see no need to redirect, as the article has few incoming links and the title does not seem to be an especially likely search term. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Mandsford, above. Bearian (talk) 20:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 00:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, it doesn't cost anything extra to have a redirect and if it helps one person find what they are looking for it will pay benefits. Jeepday (talk) 00:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Question Why redirect to the List of the 100 wealthiest people? I bet not even 10% of that list have derived their wealth from software, or even computing in general. If I put in "software mogul" as a search term, "Warren Buffett" is hardly the result I'm looking for ....MadScot (talk) 01:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I agree with MadScot here, why redirect to the List of the 100 wealthiest people? The Man in the Rock (talk) 02:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Black Falcon. The fact that Linus Torvalds and Steve Balmer are both "moguls" in this list proves how worthless the list is. VasileGaburici (talk) 08:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. List offers nothing more a category would Equendil Talk 09:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; unless there is a better list of those people involved in software who are rich, famous, powerful, or influential. Yartett (talk) 15:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced original research, scope is far too vague to make a coherent list. Hut 8.5 12:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There is sufficient consensus here that this article consists primarily of original research. Shereth 18:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Computer Theology

This article have been submitted to deletion on fr.wikipedia September 1st and deleted September 7th (cf. fr:Wikipédia:Pages à supprimer/Théologie des ordinateurs). The discussion have showe the goal of this article is to promote the book Computer Theology: Intelligent Design of the World Wide Web. This article author have also created the article Bertrand du Castel to enhance promotion. There is a great autopromotion suspiction. Furthermore, the references of the article aren't considered trustable. Dereckson (talk) 16:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions.

Delete. The only thing books listed in the bibliography seem to have in common is that they approach religion from a computer science (or a subset) perspective, or the opposite. The article would likely fail WP:SYNTH if it was a decent synthesis, instead it is too confused to qualify: one sentence, "Computer Theology" is about "the role of religion in computer networks", the next it's "the use of religion to understand the evolution of computer networks", and then a bunch of unrelated ideas. That the article bears the same name as a book recently published and was created by a single purpose account (User:Computertheology) is another indication that this article should not be included. Equendil Talk 22:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Answer has already be given on many of these points at Talk:Computer_Theology. Here are comments on the other points: [1](Deletion of the French article): The French translation, admittedly weak, was a courtesy to the French audience. Immediately after the creation of the article the French Wikipedia comment pages started showing insults instead of attempts at making the translation better, and therefore the effort was abandoned. Next to the insults on the French version where comments in other parts of the text where the authors complained about the "anglophone" world ignoring the "francophone" world. Therein may lay a reason. 2](Furthermore, the references of the article aren't considered trustable): Considered by whom? On which basis? [3](One sentence, "Computer Theology" is about "the role of religion in computer networks", the next it's "the use of religion to understand the evolution of computer networks"). While the first citation is in the text, the second citation is made up and not in the text of the article. Regards. Computertheology (talk) 13:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)ComputerTheology.[reply]

The sentence, which I admitedly botched, is "Computer Theology uses religious studies (a perspective external to religion) and theology (a perspective internal to religion) to understand the evolution of computer networks in regards to that of human societies and to formalize their constituting concepts." which doesn't quite evoke the same idea to me as the study of "the role of religion in computer networks" but ok, this is downright bizarre anyway. Hey, I am just a lowly software engineer who somehow has never heard of this "branch of computer science".

Anyway, that doesn't explain the bulleted themes and selected bibliography. To quote just the first bullet: "Illustration of theological concepts using computer science methodology" which I assume refer to Knuth's illuminated Bible texts, and doesn't seem to be about computer networks (but I haven't read the book, entertain me).

Now there's the possibility that the article was meant to be broader in scope than just what the introduction sentence suggests, but as I hinted to, this would likely constitute (if content was significant) original research through synthesis of published material and Wikipedia is not the place for that.

Or there's another possibility, that the article was just meant to exist and be called the same as a book recently published and source material was improvised to give the article a semblance of legitimacy. This may explain why for instance, an essay ("Computer Theology: A New Era for Theology") that discusses the use of computer technology for Theological purposes is a reference here, despite bearing no relation to the study of "the role of religion in computer networks".

Which is it ? Just *what* is this article supposed to be about ? Equendil Talk 23:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The terms "downright bizarre" are downright insulting and breach the number one principle of Wikipedia, i.e. good faith. The terms "lowly software engineer" and "I haven't read the book" are also derogatory. If you decide to read Knuth, you may want to start with Things a Computer Scientist Rarely Talks About, where he answers your question directly. Page 19 you'll find this question and answer (the book is a series of lectures follows by question and answer session): "Q: What influence might computers have on future developments in theology? A: The simple answer is that Web-based resources have recently appeared that make it much easier now to approach the vast theological literature." Then a little further in the answer: "Could advances in computer technology actually influence the manner of divine revelation?" Here, Knuth speaks of exactly the same subject as Deane William Ferm. Please read the book. If you are a software engineer, you'll see that it speaks directly to you. It is also worth reading our answer to Ningauble below, because it also bears on the subject of how the concepts of accessing information and using it merge in the Computer Theology perspective.

The same subject as Deane William Ferm ? That reference is another essay, entirely unrelated to computer science or computer networks, the term "computer theology" only appears as a parenthesis "(megatrend theology? computer theology? multinational theology?)", and is evidently not defined as it is merely a fleeting suggestion of a name. I reiterate my question: what is the article supposed to be about exactly ? Equendil Talk 03:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article of Deane William Ferm articulates that theologies are culturally determined (a proposition which is certainly both debatable and debated, but that doesn't bear on our discussion right now), and illustrates this point in particular regarding eastern cultures. Then the article raises the question of modifications of modern culture, such as the obvious expansion afforded in particular by computer networks, but also other aspects of recent expansions. Deane William Ferm did purposely not develop how such modifications map with new theologies. However Computer Theology does precisely that. Somehow you're not getting that from the article: is there anything we could do to make that clearer to you? Any suggestion? Or do still desire more explanation of this point? Computertheology (talk) 22:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)ComputerTheology[reply]

I was asking, as before, what the article on Wikipedia we are discussing here is supposed to be about, not Ferm's essay. Besides I'm sorry, but there is nothing about computer networks in that essay. I am not very good at assuming good faith when confronted to seemingly promotional material in the first place, but I definitively cannot assume good faith when bad faith is demonstrated. Equendil Talk 23:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The essay dates back to 1984, a time where networks were merely emerging in academic and some industrial use. The point of Ferm's article is that theologies are culturally defined. The author thought about computer theology as a cultural phenomenon, but didn't specify the culture itself; today, it is impossible to consider the computer culture outside of the network culture. We've already discussed the promotional accusation, but let's repeat it here. There is promotion of the knowledge represented in the article, but that's what Wikipedia is for. For example, look at the Golem article. If you read the Golem legend, there is no mention of automata in it. However, automata are a central feature of the article. It is just that in the Prague gettho at the inception of the legend automata were not a common cultural reference. But automata would become a reference to the Golem, a metaphor akin to that found in Computer Theology. Certainly you will not propose the Golem article for deletion. To conclude that particular point, it's proper to mention here that you'll find this exact reference to the Golem in Anne Foerst' book. We'd like to thank you in a kind of backhanded way since you force a very nice discussion of issues. Nevertheless, we definitely prefer the civil tone. It appears that we are all volunteers here, all interested in propagation (should we say "promotion"?) of knowledge. Computertheology (talk) 05:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)ComputerTheology.[reply]

Delete. Non-notable as a "branch of Computer Science and Theology." The article is primarily original research by synthesis of loosely related ideas from primary sources. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:24, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "non-notable" argument is not substantiated, so it's hard to debate. In contrast, the "original research" argument is based on the term "loosely". When scholarly articles and books dating back to more than 20 years ago mention explicitly "computer theology" in their title or/and text on exactly the same subject, what's original and loose about that? Computertheology (talk) 19:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)ComputerTheology[reply]

Are you refering to W. Paul Jones' essay : "Computer Theology: A New Era for Theology" ? "How can computers be used, not only in theological education, but in the service of theology itself?" ? *How* is that the same subject ? Equendil Talk 23:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We are not referring only to that article, but we can talk about this one as you mention it. A key sentence in the article is "Such a role correlates roughly with the functions of a computer - remembering, condensing, interconnecting" (p. 46). You may be familiar with Merlin Donald's work A Mind So Rare, which includes external representations (p. 321) into the "theoretic" part of modern culture (p. 260), which he also denotes as "External symbolic universe." With "Remembering, condensing, interconnecting," Paul Jones includes theology in Merlin Donald's model. That merges religion and networks (and storage therein) and the article can be considered the foundation of Computer Theology.

Comment on improving the article: The principle objection to the article (non-notable synthesis) is due to the lack of a citation for the lead section, in which it is asserted that there is an integrated field of study involving the four aspects mentioned. The perceived defect may be cured by citing multiple independent reliable secondary sources that treat all of these aspects together as an established field. This is what is meant by notability of the field. In particular, what is meant by secondary sources is not those that propose, endorse, or posit such an integrated approach, but those that treat it objectively as an established field. Positing and arguing the thesis is what is meant by original research, no matter how good the argument. On the other hand, one could write an article on a book about this thesis, but only if the book itself is notable. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for finally articulating what you consider the issue. It is extremely frustrating to see posts which have no explanation other than a reference to a Wikipedia article (WP:SYN) that actually doesn't contain a description that makes the article "original" research. Now either your position is correct, and it should be added to the Wikipedia article, or it is incorrect, and the issue is moot. Both would be fine, as they would represent a verifiable reference; what's not fine is using a non-documented feature to seek deletion of an article. Now, to speak specifically of the issue you mention, we think it is indeed correctly reflecting the current status of the article. While the references provided all combine some of the elements of the Computer Theology list, we do not know of a reference which would encompass the four at once. Certainly there is not one of the references that are in the article right now which covers at once the four items of the list. We think we know the field quite well and we have not seen the four being covered at once in articles and/or presentations so far. It's not clear to us why this makes the article "original" still, but if there is a definition of "original" that says that all the elements of a list need to be covered by a single reference, it would be interesting to have a pointer to it, because it would make, for example, the article on archaeology "original". If you look at archeology, you'll find the following: "The goals of archaeology vary, and there is debate as to what its aims and responsibilities are". (There is no citation). Would you propose deletion of the archeology article? Thank you again for taking the pain of sifting through the hubris so that we get to the core of the matter. It looks like the process is useful but it is sure seems painful for everyone involved. Computertheology (talk) 22:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)ComputerTheology[reply]

Note: Please stop removing the AfD notice from the article. By Wikipedia policy the notice must remain until this discussion is closed. ~ Ningauble (talk) 22:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first Wikipedia policy is good faith. The present discussion doesn't belong to a "deletion" page, but rather to the article discussion page. Actually, we are moving it there as it may be of interest to readers of the article at large. There is no reason for this deletion page to be. We hope the discussion (which is now becoming interesting) will continue on the talk page of the article. Particularly welcome would be suggestions to improve the article.Computertheology (talk) 01:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)ComputerTheology[reply]

This deletion process cannot be interrupted until an administrator decides to close it. That process is not up for discussion here and removing the notice again will only get you blocked from editing. Equendil Talk 03:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. It was not clear to us that this was a bona fide process. We'll assume (albeit admittedly with some befuzzlment) good faith.Computertheology (talk) 22:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)ComputerTheology.[reply]

Appears to be original research via synthesis. Delete per WP:SYN. -- The Anome (talk) 03:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See the answer above to the specific comments on the subject by Ningauble.

Delete with userification as an option. I'll volunteer to work with this author to improve the article with an eye towards putting it back into mainspace at some point. Jclemens (talk) 22:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why not now? How do you propose to improve the article? Regards. Computertheology (talk) 22:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)ComputerTheology[reply]

There are only two accounts involved in this discussion, that we recognize (even when we disagree) have spent the time to evaluate the article in some depth (as opposed to issuing statements without explanations): Equendil and Ningauble. Actually, Ningauble is a single purpose account created August 20, 2008, that is dedicated to deletions Special:Contributions/Ningauble. No history of contribution, extremely short Wikipedia life, and then just deletions? Computertheology (talk) 03:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)ComputerTheology[reply]

Comment. Please try to assume good faith. See note on your talk page. ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable per above. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 15:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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