Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 October 6

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Momo Hemo (talk | contribs) at 01:00, 6 October 2008 (Adding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jane_DS). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< October 5 October 7 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  20:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jane_DS

AfDs for this article:
Jane_DS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject is not notable. There are no secondary references on page. The article doesn't assert notability. Momo Hemo (talk) 00:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Subject is notable. One of the most popular members of the lifecasting genre. Thought of by Justin.tv staff as one of the premier drawing points. Interviewed by or featured on/in multiple web magazines and think tanks (i.e. The Silicon Alley Insider, a webzine with over 1,000,000 monthly global views, worth noting she's featured multiple times on this site, the Institute for the Future, and is scheduled to be involved in an upcoming event forum on the future of internet video moderated by journalists from Boing Boing). Viewership numbers are on par with fellow lifecasters iJustine, Sarah Austin and Lisa Batey.

Worth noting, as far as this discussion goes, is Momo (the author of the deletion issue) having a personal grudge with Jane. This stims from Jane explaining a recent ankle injury while Momo wanted her attention, as Jane continued to explain her injury, Momo made some derogatory comments, the next day he put forward this deletion request. Momo actually has some what of a reputation on JTV. Not to inject personal points into a reasoned voted, but his personal biases should be noted. As for the notability of my personal articles, my Wikipedia work is well thought of by members of the sports community and North Carolina community. I've had a hand in over 1000 notable articles. BobbyAFC (talk) 02:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have no personal grudge with the subject whatsoever nor do I have a reputation on JTV seeing as how I've been on there for approximately a week and a half. I was searching wikipedia for information on the logitech quickcam pro 9000 and Jane_DS was one of the three results listed. The main reason why I listed the article is because it does not assert notability nor does it list and reliable secondary reference, and it has been in existence long enough that the article should have those. Please don't take this as a personal attack again you or Jane, and I encourage you to put reliable references in and assert notability so that this fails.Momo Hemo (talk) 02:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - CSD. Agree with strikeout_sister. Personal grudges are irrelevant here. The article has no external sources aside from self-references. It fails WP:N. Chaldor (talk) 02:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice to recreation if and when reliable secondary sources cover this alleged phenomenon. Jclemens (talk) 04:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 7 October 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. G11 or A7, no assertion of notability TravellingCari 04:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kartel Records

Kartel Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

According to the article, this labels first release is coming out next month. A quick search reveled no reliable sources. My guess is that it just might fail the notability guideline for companies. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It also has WP:COI issues, having been edited by User:KartelRecords.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 00:49, 6 October 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.  Sandstein  20:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Atlas of Sport in Brazil

Atlas of Sport in Brazil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

There are claims of notability in this article but nothing to back it up with its English or Portuguese name. In fact the only thing I've found apart from wiki mirrors is the book's announcement TravellingCari 16:31, 1 October 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 00:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 23:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you Still Awake? (Radio Show)

Are you Still Awake? (Radio Show) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A radio show that ran for one month, no evidence of notability. We're not a directory of every BBC radio program. See also, this AfD for other similarly short-lived programs. Also included for the same reasons of a handful of episodes:

There will be another bundle, but I don't want this to be monstrous. TravellingCari 17:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- TravellingCari 18:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- TravellingCari 18:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • very tentative Keep I think it is easier having an article for every BBC show than deciding individually which ones are too trivial to list, or trying to fix a criterion. Cari, you are presumably going by some standard--what is it? As for going by independent sourcing in RSs, I suppose searching print newspapers from the period would give several sources if anyone wanted to make the point. DGG (talk) 18:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment yep - the standard is the handful of episodes <10, often 4-6 - usually half hour or fifteen minutes in run time and no more than two months in duration. Any more than that and the articles appear to have some notability or chance. I didn't do a search on every single one but once I realised the pattern, most were no more than trivial mentions i.e. this show airs today with no evidence of why its notable. I disagree, I don't think we need an article for every show that ever had a handful of epsiodes on one of the BBC Radio channels if there's no evidence it was notable, but we can agree to disagree. I think in 99.99% of cases, ones with such a short run were not and that's why they were cancelled. I don't think we are or should be a catalog of everything that aired. What are your thoughts on the benefit of these sentences? TravellingCari 19:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. It's not our place to make that decision. Notability policy for TV and radio shows is very clear: length is irrelevant, so long as the show was broadcast beyond a local market (and even then there are many examples where this rule is broken). 23skidoo (talk) 22:57, 6 October 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 00:36, 6 October 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 00:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect to BBC Radio 4 (or other meaningful target). That these all lasted for just several episodes is not a deterrent to notability, but the fact that these articles have nothing more than that, and no sources, does not leave much more than a bare stub. Merge/redirect would allow these articles to be recreated as standalones when more details and reliable sources can be added, without losing any of the minimal info and history already here. There should be articles out there announcing the new shows and describing why they lasted so briefly. Alansohn (talk) 20:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural speedy close. This is a completely improper use of batch nominations. The length a TV or radio series runs is irrelevant to its notability (see Wonderfalls as one random example), and notability policy for radio and TV shows has established that programs broadcast nationally by a national network are notable; if the BBC doesn't meet that criteria I don't know what does. But beyond that, there is no way to conduct a viable AFD for this batch as any one of these series may have an independent claim to notability. No prejudice against relisting separately, but attempting to do an AFD discussion in this context will just lead to a mess and may result in a legitimately notable series article being deleted. 23skidoo (talk) 22:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • agree speedy close - "I didn't do a search on every single one but once I realised the pattern" ... just because a Article fits a pattern is no reason to AFD it. Isnt a Nominator expected to do some a reasonable search? "first do the necessary homework and look for sources yourself..."??? if Admins dont try, why should anyone else? Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 00:07, 8 October 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 to delete. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After Happy Ever (Radio Show)

After Happy Ever (Radio Show) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

More in the series of non-notable extremely short lived radio series. See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Are you Still Awake? (Radio Show) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/After Eden (2nd nomination). Bundling for the same reasons:

  • very tentative Keep I think it is easier having an article for every BBC show than deciding individually which ones are too trivial to list, or trying to fix a criterion. Cari, you are presumably going by some standard--what is it? As for going by independent sourcing in RSs, I suppose searching print newspapers from the period would give several sources if anyone wanted to make the point. Perhaps we should have seen how the A's go before dealing with the others. DGG (talk) 18:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment yep - the standard is the handful of episodes <10, often 4-6 - usually half hour or fifteen minutes in run time and no more than two months in duration. Any more than that and the articles appear to have some notability or chance. I didn't do a search on every single one but once I realised the pattern, most were no more than trivial mentions i.e. this show airs today with no evidence of why its notable. I disagree, I don't think we need an article for every show that ever had a handful of epsiodes on one of the BBC Radio channels if there's no evidence it was notable, but we can agree to disagree. I think in 99.99% of cases, ones with such a short run were not and that's why they were cancelled. I don't think we are or should be a catalog of everything that aired. What are your thoughts on the benefit of these sentences? TravellingCari 19:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not arguing that any of these are notable, but be very wary of assuming that a BBC radio series running 4-6 episodes was "cancelled". In many cases that would have been the scheduled full set of broadcasts. (The original Hitch Hikers' Guide to the Galaxy' was a six show series, IIRC. Fawlty Towers only ran a couple of 6 show series too, I think. The BBC had a tendency to create very short series, especially of comedy items.) MadScot (talk) 00:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Noted for the future. The creator had a number of stubs that did assert some notability even with a shorter run time, so I didn't touch those. TravellingCari 00:35, 6 October 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 00:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect to BBC Radio 4 (or other meaningful target). That these all lasted for just several episodes is not a deterrent to notability, but the fact that these articles have nothing more than that, and no sources, does not leave much more than a bare stub. Merge/redirect would allow these articles to be recreated as standalones when more details and reliable sources can be added, without losing any of the minimal info and history already here. There should be articles out there announcing the new shows and describing why they lasted so briefly Alansohn (talk) 20:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural speedy close. This is a completely improper use of batch nominations. The length a TV or radio series runs is irrelevant to its notability (see Wonderfalls as one random example), and notability policy for radio and TV shows has established that programs broadcast nationally by a national network are notable; if the BBC doesn't meet that criteria I don't know what does. But beyond that, there is no way to conduct a viable AFD for this batch as any one of these series may have an independent claim to notability. No prejudice against relisting separately, but attempting to do an AFD discussion in this context will just lead to a mess and may result in a legitimately notable series article being deleted. 23skidoo (talk) 22:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • agree speedy close - "I didn't do a search on every single one but once I realised the pattern" ... just because a Article fits a pattern is no reason to AFD it. Isnt a Nominator expected to do some a reasonable search? "first do the necessary homework and look for sources yourself..."??? if Admins dont try, why should anyone else? Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 00:08, 8 October 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) 15:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Samiyah Amanquah

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

Possible hoax.

Heads up: I've removed a section on health problems. If this person is real, then it's a massive WP:BLP breach, and I'd rather be precautious in such a situation, as it's *very* contentious and had no sources.

My reason for believing this is a hoax: for starters, there is no such thing as the "Zoo modelling agency", only a lad's mag by that name. The timeline in the article is choppy: she starts modelling at 16, took time out (it said in the section I removed) from her career, then restarted her career while she was still 16? Pretty suspicious sounding. A google search brings up 9 results, none of which are third-party & reliable sources with which to establish notability, anyway. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 10:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Martin R. Reyes

AfDs for this article:
Martin R. Reyes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Verifiability still in question. The article is much different from the previous Afd to avoid a speedy delete for repost. Title of "Father of Selective Philippine Logging" returns 2 results, wiki and his own website. "Makiling Echo" is a real journal but there are no online sources that demostrate that Makiling Echo did made an article about him. Lenticel (talk) 13:23, 1 October 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) 00:26, 6 October 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) 15:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chandler Dash

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

Asserts notability by association, but has only one source which is bloggish and in any case does not mention the subject. 38 unique Google hits do not include any significant coverage in reliable independent sources, and all substantive edits are by a WP:SPA. Looks like self-promotion to me. Guy (Help!) 13:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article was previously speedily deleted, and its subject is still just as non-notable. Doing a quoted Google search for "Chandler Dash" brings up 0 non-Wikipedia hits that reference this person, which is pretty much a guarantee of non-notability for a pop-culture subject. Sashaman (talk) 04:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it seems to me if the article were true there should be plenty of reliable sources, and there aren't. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:47, 6 October 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 À fleur de toi. Stifle (talk) 09:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pourquoi les hommes ?

Pourquoi les hommes ? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable song, never charted, only available digitally. Fails WP:NM. Europe22 (talk) 00:21, 6 October 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) 00:11, 11 October 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. ScribeOfAges's opinion is discounted per WP:WAX.  Sandstein  20:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MapleStory iTrading Card Game

MapleStory iTrading Card Game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable card game. Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 23:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although articles should demonstrate the notability of their topics, and articles on topics that do not meet this criteria are generally deleted, it is important to not just consider whether notability is established by the article, but whether it readily could be. When discussing whether to delete or merge an article due to non-notability, the discussion should focus not only on whether notability is established in the article, but on what the probability is that notability could be established. If it is likely that independent sources could be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate unless active effort has been made to find these sources. For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort.--Deretto (talk) 05:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Source: WP:NOTE--Deretto (talk) 05:20, 4 October 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 00:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 23:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Graysons

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

Show just announced, no info will be known about the show for a long time. Once more info is available, the page can be recreated and info added, but for now there is simply not enough info to warrant this stub. Anakinjmt (talk) 23:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is enough info out that people will be googling it and wanting to know what it is! Wikipedia has some short entries and this one will grow quickly. Keep it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.125.68.34 (talk) 12:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What info? The only info there is the announcement and who the showrunners are. I'm not saying the article shouldn't exist at some point. Just not now. This is something that's not uncommon, having articles deleted that return later once more info comes out. Anakinjmt (talk) 13:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and merge into a new section called Programs under development in the article The CW Television Network. As production of the show is still in such an early stage, the show may never be developed, making it questionable per WP:Crystal Ball. I would not consider the subject notable on its own until it either airs or has gone into production with some well-known actor. Until then, it is merely a show CW is considering and better placed in that article. ¢Spender1983 (talk) 23:42, 4 October 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 00:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and do NOT merge. 95% of programs under development never see the light of day. Until a pilot is aired, Wikipedia shouldn't bother with it. Jclemens (talk) 04:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There has been no casting, no scripting, no idea if this is going to actually be picked up, or if there will even be a CW to air this program next year. There are so many program ideas every year that are developed, and many which are never seen except in the network screening room before they're rejected. Wait until May 2009 to create this article, if it gets past development and pilot stage. Nate • (chatter) 07:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with the article on the character Robin. I agree that many shows announced as being under development never get made, however there has been reputable media coverage (I saw a mention on CNN, for one) regarding this proposed series. Therefore it's legitimate to include it in the main character article (under the discussion on media adaptations). No prejudice against recreating the article once it's been commissioned as an actual series. 23skidoo (talk) 23:00, 6 October 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 All You Need Is Me. Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My Dearest Love

My Dearest Love (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a Morrissey B-side song. Aside from the incorrect infobox, there is no reason for this song to have a separate article. Morrissey in particular has about as many B-sides as A-sides and this one does not have any special notability. This info can easily be merged into the article for the single's A-side. - eo (talk) 09:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:21, 6 October 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 All You Need Is Me. Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Children In Pieces

Children In Pieces (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a Morrissey B-side song. Aside from the incorrect infobox, there is no reason for this song to have a separate article. Morrissey in particular has about as many B-sides as A-sides and this one does not have any special notability. Additionally, the article's title formatting is also incorrect (capital "In"). This info can easily be merged into the article for the single's A-side. - eo (talk) 09:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery of 1913 Great Lakes storm images (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This appears to be little more than a cross-wiki disambiguation page... It's currently a candidate to be copied to Commons, but all these pages are on Commons already. On there they're all interlinked by category (Commons:Category:Great_Lakes_Storm_of_1913), and a link to them is provided on Great Lakes Storm of 1913, meaning this page is now redundant. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 08:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:08, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Internet celebrity

Internet_celebrity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ([[{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}|View AfD]])
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 6 October 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 The Fixxers. per WP:MUSIC Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Midnight Life (album)

Midnight Life (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable unreleased album that is unlikely to see release; little or no media coverage and no references. Fails WP:MUSIC#Albums and WP:V. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 14:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 6 October 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) 09:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tara Chand (musician)

Tara Chand (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable musician, fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC Ecoleetage (talk) 00:16, 6 October 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) 00:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 23:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nischal(actor)

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

Non-notable film actor with lots of completely unsupported assertions. Can't find any sources, the name is completely vague and while claims of notability are suggested, a lack of WP:V and WP:RS compliance puts them in doubt, since the few sources cited don't show most of the requirements in WP:ENTERTAINER.  Logical Premise Ergo? 15:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't sure it would be uncontested, as some form of notability is asserted even if it can't be verified. I would rather take it to AfD when I'm uncertain than spam CSD tags. Extra eyes on a topic never hurt. :) -- Logical Premise Ergo? 21:53, 1 October 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) 00:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - He did win the State Television Award in India, which I assume is a big thing. So "the person has received a notable award or honor", as required in WP:BIO. He also receives quite a write-up here[15], so WP:BIO's "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material" is met as well. There is some notability here. Sources are poor though. I've been looking for better ones but haven't found any.    SIS  02:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exceedingly weak keep. The article - really an interview - to which SS (love your sig BTW) refers gives some pretty good information, but is of limited use as an independent source to establish notability. The subject's comments about currently working for JP Morgan and hoping for a balance of 50% film career and 50% conventional career really don't sound like the stuff of which notability is made. Still, he has a substantial list of film/television appearances, some of which sound as if they may have been in notable films. I tagged the article for WP India's film work group in the hope that someone there will know more. If kept it probably should be renamed to add a space after the name. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 14:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Minor comment but I do need to make it: - It's SIS, not SS.    SIS  21:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I looked at the Kerala State TV award listing from the government site here [16]. Not only do they not have a "Child Actor" category in 1992 (it wasn't a category until much later, 2005) there is no Nischal, or with anyone with the last name of Mohan either. There is a child artist category but neither of the 1992 entries match his name, both are different actors. Additionally, I can't find anything in Google India [17] for Chapalyam or Chapalyam TV series, nor can I find anything where *any* award was awarded to that "show" by the Kerala State TV awards. I also tried some searches for the series on Indian search engines [18] , [19], with no results for Nischal or the series. I'm very confused by that interview in ScreenIndia, but unfortunately I cannot consider that source relaible when I can't verify this person appearing in ANY movie. I'd be very appreciative if someone could verify this, but I certainly can't and everything I'm finding makes it look like a hoax. I'm very uncertain on how we can source any of the claims in the article. -- Logical Premise Ergo? 15:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional Comment -- the link to Cinechance does not appear very encouraging, since that's mainly a site to get noticed by aspiring actors. -- Logical Premise Ergo? 15:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That's always a problem I've encountered in trying to make sense of Bollywood films. While not encouraging, I don't think that the lack of mention of the subject or award on the government website necessarily makes it a hoax - I do see that there's this link seems to indicate both that one of the claimed movies (By the People)exists, and that someone named Nischal was in it. I also can verify the existence of the 4 the People, and that the same director made both movies. Still, this does tend to confirm the enormous difficulty in making any concrete statements at all. I'm still waiting to see if a subject-matter expert can help, but my already weak support is hanging by a thread. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 20:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.
I'm not so much worried about the lack of sources as that the site where we can verify he won that award does NOT support the claim at all. -- Logical Premise Ergo? 20:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems there are a number of state endorsed TV awards that can be awarded to TV actors. There are 'Indian Telly Awards', 'Indian State TV Awards', and 'Padma Awards' (which come in 3 variations for seperate civilian disciplines). It doesn't make finding our friend any easier. Apart from the one mention in the ScreenIndia article I haven't found any other confirmation, and my weak support isn't feeling much better yet. I don't believe the article is a hoax, though.    SIS  21:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*grimly* The award mentioned in the article is specifically the Kerala, in the little "awards" box. And I think also in the interview. -- Logical Premise Ergo? 23:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No need to be grim. When I said "It doesn't make finding our friend any easier" I was referring to my frustrating searches for clear info. I wasn't suggesting you were wrong.    SIS  00:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And it only gets worse. He's mentioned as an actor in By the people here[20] and here[21], but this article in the Hindu[22] is about the same film and doesn't mention him at all. Are there aliases at play, perhaps?    SIS  21:59, 6 October 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) 23:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Housing Market Report

Housing Market Report (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable online publication. Not mentioned in any third-party sources as the topic. The name comes up a lot, but none of it related to this particular entity. No notability established.  Logical Premise Ergo? 15:29, 1 October 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) 00:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've been out of the field of housing economics since 2001, but back then HMR was a respected publication among the small community of housing economists and forecasters. Majoreditor (talk) 02:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (if not improved). It is the creating editor's responsibility to claim and demonstrate notability. Given the exceptionally large number of unrelated hits generated by a search for "Housing Market Report", this task is not reasonable to expect AfD commentators to undertake on the creating editor's behalf. There is no particular reason to believe that this publication is not notable, but equally no reason to believe it is. Bongomatic (talk) 02:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 23:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Language Computer Corporation

Language Computer Corporation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable startup. VG ☎ 01:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • While it's useful to suggest where to look for sources of information, the burden is on the person(s) who believe that there is enough independent coverage to show notability to find the sources and add them to the article. If you can produce third party sources that verify the claims then the article will have a better chance of surviving. Bill (talk|contribs) 14:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could you provide some direct links for those claims? I could not verify them myself (and I do have full access to ACM digital library). VG ☎ 19:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've found a few bits of information that convince me: (1) the academic sources, especially the ACM notice as noted above; (2) two US military contracts, one in 2006 for $8.04 million (US Fed News, 2006-10-02) and one in 2008 for $742,820 (US Fed News 2008-03-06); (3) some sources about the company's commercial spin-off, Lymba, like a review of Lymba's PowerAnswer product (Natural Language Engineering 14 (1): 141–144. doi:10.1017/S1351324907004639). From the looks of it, this is a largely low-profile operation, but it is working on a significant scale (just shy of $9 million in defense contracts!), and the sources are eminently verifiable. I will incorporate these sources and others within the next couple of days. Avram (talk) 07:28, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Avram. rootology (C)(T) 00:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:16, 6 October 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.  Sandstein  20:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Antoinette Sandbach

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

Contested prod, tag removed by IP with no explanation. Unelected candidate, does not meet the relevant notability guide. Cannot find sources beyond personal blog and profile on party's website. TN‑X-Man 15:34, 1 October 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) 00:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. She has a blog!!Delete. Non notable. Bongomatic (talk) 03:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 23:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All By Students (ABS) Notebooks

All By Students (ABS) Notebooks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:SPAM, WP:ORG. WP:COI issues too RayAYang (talk) 18:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I looked before setting this up for AfD. Basically nothing beyond what's on the page -- a single gnews hit, 8 google hits. I marked it as a classic "public relations" type piece, hence the spam. I agree, it's not obvious spam, or a candidate for G12. RayAYang (talk) 23:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note — Creator has removed a {{coi}} tag from the article among others. This can be better explained at WP:COIN. MuZemike (talk) 23:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • '"Note"' - I am the creator. I removed all the tags because I thought I had solved the issue by editing the language to make the tone neutral. I had initially just grabbed the language from blogs and articles written about them, but after it was tagged went back with a more discerning eye- sorry about all the confusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lpie7 (talk • contribs) 18:42, 3 October 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) 00:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Passes WP:V but misses the mark on WP:N which is more fundamental.Themfromspace (talk) 01:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:GNGIf a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be a suitable article topic." The marketing press is of the subject, but the university press is independent of the subject —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.186.108.48 (talk • contribs) 00:53, 7 October 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.  Sandstein  20:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Corporate personality

Corporate personality (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An article mostly made by IP addresses. The site provided does not exist. Neologism to me. Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 00:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • There's a concept of "corporate personality" in theology, that was first invented by H. Wheeler Robinson. It has two pages of discussion in David Noel Freedman; Allen C. Myers; Astrid B. Beck (2000). "Corporate Personality". Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. pp. 285–287. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Unknown parameter |isbn13= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |last-author-amp= ignored (|name-list-style= suggested) (help). It's nothing whatsoever to do with this that (as far as I can determine) heretofore entirely undocumented idea, though. Wikipedia should have a proper article on a real, independently and multiply documented, and (over the course of the 20th century) much discussed, idea by this name, however. If anyone reading this feels like being a bold Wikpedia editor and blanking this unverifiable and clearly agenda-pushing rubbish and starting such an article, they will find help for a good stub in the first paragraph of Sang-Won (Aaron) Son (2001). "The Old Testament Conception of "Corporate Personality"". Corporate Elements in Pauline Anthropology. Fort Worth, TX: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum. p. 75. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |isbn13= ignored (help). Uncle G (talk) 14:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and replace Keep, as described rewritten by Uncle G. There are also notable concepts relating to the idea of corporations as legal persons, and as brand identities; what's was in the article now is was none of these. (Revised after Uncle G was bold. Good work!) AlexTiefling (talk) 16:46, 6 October 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) 15:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Tate

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

WP:NN businessperson, fails WP:BIO. Frankly looks like a puff autobiography, but notability was asserted, so I had to decline speedy. Toddst1 (talk) 23:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete with extreme prejudice True: there is a claim of notability. But my original speedy tag was WP:CSD#G11 spam. The article actually ends with (I kid you not): "Please stay tuned for update on this." It's quite obvious that the article's author is either Richard Tate himself or a close associate. The material is unsourced and frankly unimpressive anyways. He sold his business for £106,000? Sure, I wouldn't mind getting that amount of cash but in the business world, it's not even a blip on the radar. The claim about the mention in the Daily Telegraph is bogus as far as I can tell from searching the paper's archive. Ditto for the purported "Business Magazine" mention. For one thing there is no such thing as "Business Magazine" though I suppose it could be the now defunct The Business (magazine). Note however that it doesn't make any sense for a magazine of repute to tip its hat to and recognize as "one of the UK's youngest businessman" a guy who at the time is 25 and has a haulage company worth peanuts. Note also the bizarre absence of even a name for the various companies he's supposed to have started and sold. I looked on Google for every possible combo of "Richard Tate" + Haulage + distribution + "David Lloyd" + Birmingham + business and there's nothing. This is either a joke or one badly self-delusional individual. Pichpich (talk) 01:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update: actually, the original version of the article did mention the company's name. It's "Cockerill Distribution" and well... let's just say you should take a look at their website which can't even decide whether the company's name is Cockerill or Cockerille! [23]. Pichpich (talk) 01:15, 2 October 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) 00:12, 6 October 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 Richard Whorf. Stifle (talk) 23:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Julia, Jake and Uncle Joe

Julia, Jake and Uncle Joe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Notability concerns - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. It seems a pretty useless article. Speedy delete per G7, author request. Eachwiped (talk) 23:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article itself may have no references but google search has. If notability is the reason argued upon, in any extent, as long as someone would put inline citation in the article, it could be saved. But, as part of the reason for deletion is G7, I can't fathom the author's wavelength is. I can only think of using G7 in one's personal userpages and subpages but not in an article-page like this. If G7 is being used, notability should not just be the sole reason for this to be deleted. Shoowak (talk) 13:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Richard Whorf. (There is plenty of room to expand that article with this information.) A one-day show on broadway is notable for discussion in an appropriately related article. Unless there is significant secondary coverage about a failed show, I would not consider it notable enough for its own article. I do not think that Wikipedia should be a database for every Broadway show produced. For those who think google hits equates to notability, you should surround this search term with quotes to get an accurate count. You will find here that there are only 49 google hits. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 23:27, 4 October 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) 00:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I said earlier is not a vote but rather a comment. My point in the above statement is not notability, but rather, why should the article be nominated for a G7.. Just because I created the article, I can nominate it for deletion? Is that it?
I agree, we should not create every one-day broadway show produced.. but those broadways whose directors are notable enough can have their one-day broadway show here in wikipedia and that is Richard Whorf.. but I am not researching if he is notable enough for his shows to get here in wiki.
If there are google hits, there should be some black and white published somewhere out there, but as I said, I am not searching..
But you may be right with the merge. Shoowak (talk) 01:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment with Google search above There is no rule in wikipedia that an article should have a 50-hit Google searches for it to be notable. But there are also no guarantees that a 49-hit in Google search would give notable-enough sites for the article. Another thing, it is not just google who will provide notability for an article, so if it has only 11 google hits, but five newspapers to support the article, it, of course, will survive the notability issue. Shoowak's point is G7, ¢Spender1983's point is notability to stand as an article. My point is let us not delete article because we dont want it, and let us not create article because we want it. Let us have articles that, we know, someone will read them and someone could get information from them. I dont have an opinion if the article could stand on its own or be merged or be deleted. We need more opinions on this issue. Axxand (talk) 01:43, 7 October 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 Aashiq Banaya Aapne. Content may be merged from article history. Non-admin closure." Jclemens (talk) 04:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aashiq Banaya Apne

Aashiq Banaya Apne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

duplicate of Aashiq Banaya Aapne Anshuk (talk) 06:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boss Major

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

Not notable album by not notable publisher (see other afd) PHARMBOY (TALK) 23:37, 1 October 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) 00:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If an admin feels that you are right he can still close it delete. "Relist" doesn't mean it has to run another 5 days. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know. Schuym1 (talk) 00:35, 6 October 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 and redirect to List of oldest Major League Baseball players. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List: Oldest Pitchers to Start a Postseason Game

List: Oldest Pitchers to Start a Postseason Game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not quite as bad as players with 22 goals and 17 assists in one month but this seems a rather arbitrary and trivial selection criterion. Given that we already have lists of oldest Major League Baseball players, oldest living Major League Baseball players and Oldest Baseball Hall of Fame members, I feel this one is redundant. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 00:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"If you do not agree that the article should be deleted without discussion you can do the following things: Remove the {{dated prod}} tag from the article, noting this in the edit summary. Editors should explain why they disagree with the proposed deletion either in the edit summary, or on the article's talk page."

So that's what I was attempting to do and notified you as such per a later step on that same page.


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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Days Of Rae

Days Of Rae (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable band, WP:MUSIC issues. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2008_October_6&oldid=243317989"