Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 November 17

< November 16	November 18 >

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 delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 16:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correlating Politics, Government and Law in India

This article is marked as being "under construction", but I don't believe that an article with such a diffuse topic could possibly be encyclopedic regardless of the contents that are added. The existing material looks very random, and none of it is yet sourced. I suggest merging anything good into the more specific articles that this one comprises. looie496 (talk) 00:03, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/delete per nomination. This one looks like a lot of unsourced information, though it looks factually reasonable (at a glance). There are already articles on Indian Law, Indian Politics and Indian Government. TheFeds 06:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, redirect and close nomination: Pages for merged material should never be deleted but instead redirected to retain attribution of the merged material as required by the GFDL (merging histories usually messes up the history of the merged-to page). Also, mergers should be requested at Wikipedia:Requested mergers not AFD. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, my familiarity with the technical aspects is limited, and I'm not completely sure what you're saying. Do you mean that it was improper to bring this to AfD, or are you just indicating how this should be handled if the result is not keep? Wouldn't it be improper to merge and redirect without asking for discussion first? looie496 (talk) 16:53, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 20:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to Nominator: Discussion to merge should not be initiated here. This page is specifically for AfD. Outcome of discussion maybe merge but it should not be the starting point. This nomination fails deletion as you yourself are proposing merge. --GPPande talk! 20:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated because I don't believe there should be an article on this "topic". The fate of the material is another matter. I don't even know if there would be anything to merge, since the article is currently pretty much unreferenced and I'm not familiar with articles on related topics. Anyway, I would be happy to strike the last sentence of the nom if it is improper. As a practical matter, though, I don't see how what you are saying could make sense. If the outcome here is "delete", the closing admin is likely to immediately delete the article, and then how could the contents be merged anywhere? They won't be accessible. looie496 (talk) 21:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Vague overgeneral unencycopedic article. some of the links might be useful, but the article isn';t. DGG (talk) 04:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's not clear what the article creator's intention of this article is supposed to be. If the goal is to describe the factors that affect politics, government, and law in India, one might as well just redirect to India, but this title is not a likely redirect selection. If possible, I would like to hear from the article creator to find out what they have in mind for this article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:N, WP:V; hard to tell what the topic of the article actually is - it appears to duplicate several topics in the extensive footer Template:India topics and synthesize them into one. The editors who wrote it did some good work, but that content would be better merged into the other related topics. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:26, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I would normally suggest merging, but this is so unencyclopedic, it's only fit for deletion. TopGearFreak ^Talk 15:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep Numerous sources refer to the topic

Nai Talim

Article started a month ago but not materially edited since its creation. Not sufficient information to determine whether the subject is notable (or real). Unreferenced. Bongo matic 23:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A simple search for Nai Talim in Google gives sources from reliable Gandhi-related organizations for the top hits. Lack of activity is not a good reason for deletion. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Lack of activity is not the reason for the nomination. The nomination is because as written, the article is unencyclopedic and neither asserts nor demonstrates notability of the subject. The nomination is for this article, not for some ideal article that could be—but hasn't been—written.
  The comment on activity explains why this wasn't nominated a month ago. Bongo matic 09:21, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - You should familiarize yourself with our Wikipedia:Deletion policy, and with our Wikipedia:Editing policy, as I linked to in the edit summary. We don't delete articles at AFD because they "don't assert notability". That is nowhere in our policy. We delete them because they are not actually notable, and determining that (as explained in Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Nomination, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage#What to do, and — yes — deletion policy itself) involves you looking for sources yourself, in order to demonstrate that you have a sound basis for stating that the Primary Notability Criterion is not satisfied. You clearly haven't looked for sources yourself, otherwise you'd have seen the many history books, other encyclopaedias, scholarly articles in journals, newspaper articles, and (as mentioned) WWW sites that document this subject in detail. As such, you have no case that the subject is not notable, since you haven't done the research from which you could determine this.
    Writing the encyclopaedia is not Somebody Else's Problem. If you see a poor stub, you are supposed to expand it. (Again, see User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage#What to do.) Repeatedly nominating articles for deletion instead of spending your time looking for sources is zero help towards improving Wikipedia, and wastes other editors' time. One ends up actually being the problem. Put in the time to look for sources yourself and write. Follow the triage procedure, and only come to AFD if you don't find any sources after looking. You clearly are capable of writing. You've written 3 paragraphs in this very discussion. Expend that writing effort on actual article content, rather than deletion discussions. Think how much just those 3 paragraphs worth of writing on your part would have improved this article. Uncle G (talk) 12:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 20:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 20:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The title itself is sufficient information to determine that this is notable by simply doing a Google Books search and looking at a few of the 666 sources found. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 04:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vic Kulkarni

This is a speedy I declined because it seems to assert some notability. Some editors from India may be better able to ascertain notability but it is missing proper references at present. JodyB_talk 23:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 23:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 23:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How notable is Reed Electronics? - Mgm|^(talk) 09:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article asserts the notability of the company more than that of the subject and bases the notability of the subject on the fact that he is the CEO of a notable company. Silicon India seems to be a very sector-specific magazine and hence i dont think that being featured in it is a big deal(anyway the company is US-based not India based). Will reserve my vote for now. --Deepak D'Souza 05:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The person has significant media coverage [1], although in most of these news items he is covered as representative of a company. More notable individual interviews are [2], [3] (both require subscription). SiliconIndia also has specific article on him. [4] and he has evidently started writing for the magazine as well [5], [6]. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 13:24, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Surely he has earned his notability. He is covered by media and CEO of a firm with over $100 million cap. No reasons to delete. --GPPande talk! 18:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:40, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cordis (band)

Reads like a puff piece, seems to fail notability for WP:Music Blowdart | ^talk 23:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails Music guidelines. (Also, don't forget to deleted Richard Grimes if this goes. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 20:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 20:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I couldn't find any significant coverage. The 4 sources semi-cited in the Notes section could potentially be enough for notability, but I couldn't find them anywhere on the internet. If these could be expanded with dates, issue numbers, etc., and ideally URLs so that we could check them out, that would help no end.--Michig (talk) 20:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Less puffy now. Stil, Delete for lack of coverage, lack of touring (as far as I can tell), and lack of more than one album. Michig's efforts are great and helpful, BTW, and appreciated, but right now the article just doesn't have enough. Drmies (talk) 16:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Unless verifiable sources are found, it's not going to stay.--Michig (talk) 18:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. No consensus to delete. Malinaccier (talk) 00:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lolly Badcock

Non-notable person, who doesn't appear to meet WP:PORNBIO. Tatarian (talk) 21:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. Doesn't meet any requirement of WP:PORNBIO. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 22:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Switched vote with addition of major award. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 02:06, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I added two UK porn awards to the article. That's enough to satisfy WP:PORNBIO for me. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep by virtue of awards. Also is nom sure this is first time at AfD? I could have sworn she'd been kept previously.Horrorshowj (talk) 06:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because of the awards. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:03, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 20:11, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's no reliable, reputable sources being cited by this article indicating this person's importance, only blogs and commercial sites of questionable repute. krimpet ✽ 06:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence that the award she won is a notable award. I won the MVP of the 5th grade intramural flag football league in middle school. My parents have the trophy to prove it. Doesn't mean that I get a Wikipedia article... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:11, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Yeah there is. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 06:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Microscopically weak keep per the award but note that the article on the award noted above was created the same day as this nomination but one half hour before it. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:11, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's really detailed, yet there seems to be no point to it. TopGearFreak ^Talk 16:09, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 04:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Climate conflict

WP:Neologism states "A new term does not belong in Wikipedia unless there are reliable sources specifically about the term — not just sources which mention it briefly or use it in passing". I believe that the Climate conflict article should be deleted, because I have not been able to find a reliable source covering specifically the term "Climate conflict". Thank you for reading, and thank you in advance to anyone who contributes in a discussion regarding my nomination. Terrakyte (talk) 21:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. —Terrakyte (talk) 21:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Terrakyte (talk) 22:03, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Terrakyte (talk) 22:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article lacks cited sources altogether. Unless heavily improved, this article should be deleted per the nominators reasons. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 22:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. neologism. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it really does feel like original research. I don't doubt that the concept could be real, but it ought to be analysed elsewhere (not on wikipedia). - Richard Cavell (talk) 23:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NEO. TNP (formerly Jonathan) 00:11, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep. It's a notable concern - e.g. I remember an article in the Economist about the increasing danger of wars over water in arid zones such as the Middle East. The article should be improved rather than deleted, per WP:DELETE. Google appears to have plenty of hits for 'war conflict "climate change"', of which the first 2 are PNAS (possibly the article already cited, and War has historic links to global climate change (New Scientist). I don't know whether "Climate conflict" is the most common short term for the type of scenario the article describes. If WP:RS found during improvements indicate that some other label is more common, then rename+redirect. The comment "lacks cited sources altogether" is an exaggeration, although I notice that one of the cited URLs is so badly formatted that my browser can't find it. --Philcha (talk) 10:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure), with special thanks to Cunard for reconfirming notability. Ecoleetage (talk) 14:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Neate

Having looked at historic news articles I can't see much evidence that Adam Neate is know for anything but giving away some pictures which may or may not be worth something. His only notability appears to be as a self-publicist. Speedy delete failed, and I now realise that request was not appropriate as the article did attempt to assert some notability. Therefore I've proposed a normal deletion. Pontificake (talk) 21:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable artist. There are plenty of sources on Google News and Google News Archive. He's been called "one of the world's best-known street artists" by Telegraph.co.uk and has received a lot of coverage about him giving away many of his works of art in London. The Google News Archive search on this artist shows that he has received a fair amount of coverage before he started giving free paintings, negating the nom's assertion of WP:BLP1E. The numerous reliable sources that can be found about him show that this individual passes WP:BIO. Cunard (talk) 23:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Cunard's evidence, I believe that Neate is notable enough according to WP:BIO to allow this article to remain. Terrakyte (talk) 23:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, not even a remote chance of deletion. Even the nom admits notability. It doesn't matter what notability is for, only that it exists. I suggest withdrawal of nom, so this can be a speedy keep. Ty 03:38, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree there are plenty of reputable sources to establish notability. LinguistAtLarge
Keep. There are plenty of reputable sources about his work (he was also featured in a 5-10 minute segment on SMart which only shows notable artists) - Mgm|^(talk) 09:08, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Mountaintop removal mining#Criticism. So Why 21:21, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Gunnoe

The subject is a non-notable environmentalist. The citations given are about the mining practice not her, and therefore can not be used to establish notability.-- Kelapstick (talk) 21:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Merge. The article doesn't have a lot of content and the individual doesn't seem particularly notable by herself. I'd suggest folding her information along with that in some of the wikilinked articles from the Maria Gunnoe entry into an article on environmental activism related to mountaintop removal mining. Brian Powell (talk) 23:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (maybe to Mountaintop removal mining#Criticism). There are a fair few reliable sources ([7], [8], [9], [10],[11],[12]) that mention her but they are all very much in the context of discussing a broader topic (mountaintop removal mining) - there are no articles or sources specifically about her or her campaigning. Should she become more prominent as an activist (and independent notability is established) the information could be split off into a separate article. Guest9999 (talk) 00:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or delete. Everybody believes in stuff. Also, Joe A. Callaway Award for Civic Courage (whose article doesn't really establish its own notability either) says that award recipients have taken "some personal risk", but the Maria Gunnoe article doesn't describe anything even unusual for a community activist, let alone notable. --Closeapple (talk) 10:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. It would do well merged. It doesn't stand up on its own and it would be a shame to delete it, as there some good facts in it that shouldn't be lost. TopGearFreak ^Talk 16:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. per WP:OR, WP:ESSAY, WP:FRINGE l'aquatique || talk 01:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perlovsky's theory of logic and the mind

Talk page says the text is copied from http://www.leonid-perlovsky.com with permission. This may be original research. Like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Knowledge instinct (2nd nomination) this appears to be a one-man theory with very little independent support.

I am also nominating the following article for the same reason:

Neural modeling fields (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

McWomble (talk) 13:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or at least partial merge parts of Logic and the mind with psychology of reasoning. At least parts of this article could perhaps be profitably merged into our too brief stub on the psychology of reasoning. In fact, I might be tempted to prefer this title over "psychology of reasoning" for the content there, although perhaps logic and psychology might be the best title. The interface between formal logic and actual human reasoning processes is a vital philosophical subject, and our coverage seems scattershot. The historical account given here seems reasonably mainstream, accurate, and valuable to me.

Neural modeling fields seems to rely much more strongly on Leonid Perlovsky's own thought, and frankly I found it much rougher going. Dr. Perlovsky does seem to be a respected academic, though, and there doesn't seem to be any commercial conflict of interest going on, so I say weak keep to that one. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Merging would require expert input from WikiProject Psychology. Since the source text is known, it would be better to add any relevant content to existing articles and cite the source directly. Bearing in mind that the source text may be self-published. McWomble (talk) 14:25, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There is an OTRS ticket on the talk page. VG ☎ 21:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Basically this article contains a short history of logic, which is nice, but (mostly) covered at History of logic. Beyond that, this article is just vague speculation from a single source. Even from that narrow POV, this article doesn't say what exactly is the relationship between logic and the mind. So it just leaves the reader hanging. (I have no opinion on Neural modeling fields (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) yet.) VG ☎ 21:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Unlike the history of logic, this article emphasizes the idea that the mind does not follow formal logic, contrary to popular belief.Romanilin (talk) 21:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Whose popular belief? Original research to overturn a vulgar error which the vulgus don't actually hold serves no encyclopedic purpose I can see. Make into blog entry and delete. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to be part of an attempt to promote a fringe "dynamic logic" theory. See also Neural modeling fields, Computational intelligence since the 1950s: Complexity and logic, and Leonid Perlovsky, all created by Romanilin (talk · contribs). Unless we find some cites to this theory that aren't by Perlovsky, it's not suitable for Wikipedia under the tertiary-source rule. --John Nagle (talk) 22:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative weak keep and possibly rename The article's topic seems narrower than what its title suggests. It seems to attempt to report on one theory proposed to answer the question suggested by the title. The article should be rewritten to be more like a Wikipedia article (e.g. maybe starting with "Leonid Perlovsky's theory of the relationship between logic and the mind attempts to explain blah blah blah..." etc.) Michael Hardy (talk) 00:59, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That might well be a useful article; but it's not this one, which jumps from Aristotle to Boole to Russell and strands itself in 1931. Perlovsky or his acolytes may well be attempting to reconstruct a usable past, but Wikipedia is not the place to do so. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:06, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete first of all, it OUP that probably owns the copyright. Second, parts of an academic work excerpted separately are not WP articles. We could pull out individual pages from any significant out of copyright book and make articles out of them, but that's for wiksource, not wikipedia To the extent its clearer than the discussion in the article on him, some of the text can be used as quotations. To the extent his theory his notable it would normally be covered in his article. We don't make every idea of a notable person into a separate article. DGG (talk) 04:03, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that questions about whether the mind follows formal logic should be addressed at Mechanism_(philosophy)#Anthropic_mechanism, rather than in a new article. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:49, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. —Raven1977 (talk) 16:55, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on NMF. Regardless of what happens with the Logic and the mind, I would like to make sure that the Neural modeling fields article can be kept. I have changed it by removing more controversial claims. Basically, this article is about the mathematics behind the dynamic logic theory, which is a machine learning technique, used by AI researchers, there are many publications, and it definitely deserves to be on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Romanilin (talk • contribs) 19:15, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We need some references to "neural modeling fields" that aren't from Perlovsky. Also, the phrase is a neologism. This seems to be a multi-stage neural net, an idea that dates back to the 1960s, (see Perceptron) but by using nonstandard terminology, it's made to look like a new idea from Perlovsky.--John Nagle (talk) 03:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~OK, will provide the references, give me till tomorrow don't have time today to work on this.Romanilin (talk) 18:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

I updated the references to include several not by Perlovsky. This theory has been referred to by several names, which I added to introduction. In the book by Perlovsky (2001) where he describes the NMF, he calls it Modeling Fields Theory. Regardless, this is a valid NEW idea, that has been used by researchers, and it is NOT the same as multi-stage neural network. Romanilin (talk) 04:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then we ought to have an explanation of how they differ - sourced, and preferably not from Perlovsky. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:19, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been looking at the new references. Deming is associated with Perlovsky; they've co-authored papers, so he's not an independent source. I did find a thesis that referenced MLANS [13], but only to reject that approach. Perlovsky is also associated with Nichols Research, referenced in the "MDA Technologies" reference. [14]. After a few mergers and spinoffs, the company "Torch Concepts" emerged with the technology.[15] They were later involved with the JetBlue data mining privacy scandal.[16], but that seems to be unrelated to MLANS. I'm still not seeing anything by an unaffiliated third party. I did find a mention of MLANS and Torch Concepts [17], but it credits Prof. Keinosuke Fukunaga of Purdue University with the technology. At best, MLANS seems to deserve a minor mention in some article on neural nets or a related article. --John Nagle (talk) 17:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For one thing, Torch does not say that Dr. Burdick came up with MLANS, it says he directed several projects for ARPA and NASA involving the application of MLANS. Now, the name and the idea for this theory do come from Perlovsky, there is not much we can do about it. I thought all we needed was proof that this is used by other researchers. I have been to conferences where people presented on this. True a lot of them are somehow associated with Perlovsky, but how can they not be, the theory is only 20 years old, Perlovsky is still doing active research.Romanilin (talk) 20:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What this subject really seems to deserve is a brief entry in Neural network#Learning algorithms. That's where the various algorithms for training neural nets are covered, and that's where Perlovsky's scheme fits into Wikipedia, if anywhere. It's being presented here as a standalone theory, with few ties to existing work and claims that it's a significant breakthrough, which makes it look WP:FRINGE. As Neural network puts it, "There are many algorithms for training neural networks; most of them can be viewed as a straightforward application of optimization theory and statistical estimation." --John Nagle (talk) 18:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is NOT a neural network, this IS a stand alone theory. Could we PLEASE ask an opinion of somebody who IS in the field of Computational Intelligence? This is a model based framework, and neural networks are NOT model based systems. Neural networks consist of neurons (simple processing elements) and weights. NMF system consists of parameterized models, arbitrarily complex. Yes it can be visualized as a neural network but it is not. However, even if it were, not all neural networks are located in one article. For example, Adaptive resonance theory is a neural network architecture that has its own entry. And it is just a type of Neural network. Romanilin (talk) 22:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just thought that the article could use a good illustration, I will add it and hopefully clarify the structure and the difference from the neural network.Romanilin (talk) 00:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I want to make it clear that I am only arguing about the Neural modeling fields article. The other article Logic and the mind is more controversial and since many people object I am OK with deleting it and reworking it later in a different form or as part of another entry as suggested.Romanilin (talk) 23:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One of the references even says it's a neural network approach: "The main component of the approach is the maximum likelihood adaptive neural system (MLANS), which is a model-based neural network combining the adaptivity of a neural network with the a priori knowledge of signal models. "[18]. "Computational intelligence" is what used to be called "neural networks" or "connectionism". I don't use that stuff much, but I do have a MSCS degree from Stanford, once took "Epistemological Problems in Artificial Intelligence" from McCarthy, hold some patents in the area, and ran a DARPA Grand Challenge team, so I'm reasonably familiar with the field. This stuff just isn't that novel. Model-based systems have been tried before, usually in the field of adaptive model-based control. Many, many schemes for tuning neural nets have been tried. It's hard to tell where this stuff fits, though, because of the nonstandard terminology, the lack of references to related work, and the general weirdness of the material. I'm thinking WP:FRINGE here. For an example of a similar fringe theory, see [19]. We need more on this subject written independently of Perlovsky. --John Nagle (talk) 02:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from the author It looks like there are two major objections. Here is my response again to both.

1. "There is not enough support except from the author of the theory"

A. Perlovsky himself is a respected scientist. He wrote a book, many book chapters, hundreds of publications. He received a McLucas Basic Research Award from the US Air Force: http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123071858

B. NMF theory is described in his 2001 book. The book has good reviews, see Amazon web site.

http://www.amazon.com/Neural-Networks-Intellect-Model-Based-Concepts/dp/0195111621/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1225632930&sr=1-2

C. He wrote several book chapters on NMF

D. There are many publications that describe application of NMF. For example, this paper speaks of 20db (100 times) improvement of tracking in clutter. Ground moving target indication is a difficul problem and the improvement is simply huge. The paper is published in IEEE transactions on neural networks. http://www.leonid-perlovsky.com/perlovsky-TNN06-L487-final2.pdf

E. There are references on the internet to NMF as basis for grants, research proposals etc. For example:

http://www.mda.mil/mdalink/pdf/bneu.pdf

http://www.tech.plym.ac.uk/soc/research/ABC/

http://spie.org/x648.xml?product_id=540989

I think this is hard to claim that there is no link to existing work. If people who use NMF know Perlovsky and co-author with him, that is because the neural networks community is not very big and it is a young field. People working with similar technologies usually collaborate. True, there is no separate book not written by Perlovsky on NMF, but this cannot be a criteria for deleting the page, given all the other references. I also don't think that the NMF article is trying to artificially inflate the importance of NMF, it simply describes what it is mathematically/algorithmically and gives the phycological interpretation.

2. "This is just a regular neural network disguised in different terminology"

Yes the word "neural network" is in the refences. However in order to claim that this is nothing new, simple word search is not enough. With all respect to John Nagle, his main area does not seem to be in neural networks. Romanilin (talk) 13:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Q: Are you talking about Logic and the mind or Neural modeling fields? This page is for discussing the former. If we don't stick to that topic, it gets much harder for anyone else to follow the discussion. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A. This is only about Neural modeling fields. Somebody nominated both pages on this discussion, but at this point I am only talking about the second one.

Delete largely synthetic article on term of very restricted independent interest, inappropriate for Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 15:03, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have the same question, which of the two articles is this about? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Romanilin (talk • contribs) 21:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, McWomble (talk) 09:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge This article is like an essay. Anyway merge whatever content can be salvaged into the artificial intelligence article or some other article. Delaszk (talk) 11:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We already have an article about the proponent of this theory: Leonid Perlovsky. That article is not being considered for deletion. The Logic and the mind article seems to be a WP:FRINGE essay, and I think we have consensus to delete that. The remaining problem is Neural modeling fields. This might deserve a mention in a neural network article. What we have here is a rather turgid technical paper. --John Nagle (talk) 19:32, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Delete it merely because it's a fringe theory? There's a consensus to delete those??? I don't think that's what WP:FRINGE says: It says this:

This guideline establishes which fringe theories and opinions may be included in Wikipedia, and to a certain extent how articles about them should approach their subjects.

It says it's about which ones should be included. It's not about a guideline saying to delete them all. I think it's got to have something to do with notability. Michael Hardy (talk) 23:33, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The requirements are, in a nutshell.

In order to be notable enough to appear in Wikipedia, a fringe idea should be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory.
Even debunking or disparaging references are adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents.

This seems reasonable; we should have articles on Velikovsky or on the New Chronology or on John Cleves Symmes. But I don't see that either of these is satisfied here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:51, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many other than Velikovsky and his associates have written about Velikovsky's fringe theories, but few other than Perlovsky and his associates have written about Perlovsky's fringe theories. That's the notability distinction. --John Nagle (talk) 20:30, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with John Nagle; I apologize for having been unclear. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence that this theory is notable. All of the references are either to articles by the theory's originator or to historical writings -- none indicate that that the theory is considered notable by anyone other than Perlovsky. The whole article looks like OR, but if there's anything salvageable, it could be merged to the Leonid Perlovsky article. Klausness (talk) 20:03, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is NOT fringe. And not OR, the article Neural modeling fields is based on published work. Come on, this is getting ridiculous. Here is definition from wiki: "Fringe science is scientific inquiry in an established field of study which departs significantly from mainstream or orthodox theories, and is classified in the "fringes" of a credible mainstream academic discipline. Mainstream scientists typically regard fringe concepts as highly speculative or weakly confirmed". There is a book and many publications. Certainly Oxford monograph is sufficient to establish a mainstream. There are many publications in serious journals. US Air Force Basic Research Award is not given for fringe theories, International Neural Networks Society Gabor Award is not given for fringe theories. Look at Perlovsky web site. Not to mention that Computational intelligence is a young field of study, so what we are not going to put anything on the wiki until there is more than one book about it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Romanilin (talk • contribs) 19:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article is fundamentally flawed and nothing could be done to make it okay. Statements like "Aristotle invented logic" where the ref is from Aristotle are deeply misleading. Does Perlovsky think Aristotle invented logic or does Aristotle think Aristotle invented logic? The article argues a point (rather feebly if you ask me) but that is not an encyclopedia entry's role. There is too much synthesis and original research here. And it couldn't be otherwise! xschm (talk) 21:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think lots and lots of people think Aristotle invented logic. Michael Hardy (talk) 22:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is the relationship between the claim that Aristotle invented logic and Perlovsky's theory of logic and the mind? This article gives a cursory (and wildly incomplete) history of theories of logic. But it doesn't relate them to the subject of the article. It seems like it aims to be an essay arguing that Perlovsky is the apotheosis of this grand tradition. It fails to make a convincing argument and such an argument has no place in an encyclopedia. If that argument exists elsewhere, it could be documented here, but it seems far from clear that is the case. xschm (talk) 01:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This appears to be a personal essay of the type described in WP:NOT. The contents are not *about* Perlovsky's theories and how they might have been received by reliable third parties, they *are* Perlovsky's theories. The map should not be the territory, but in this case it is. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, xschm (talk) 21:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment he himself is notable, whether or not mainstream, on the basis of OUP publishing of one of his books. That does not make every one of his theories, or any of them, separately notable. One article is sufficient. most of the material here is unencyclopedic summary and argumentation, so I don't see how there's anything appropriate for merging. This is a clear attempt to use Wikipedia for promotional purposes. DGG (talk) 04:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, exactly that. Well said. Guy (Help!) 01:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. We're not proposing to delete the Leonid Perlovsky article here, just the "spinoff articles". --John Nagle (talk) 05:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Merge with Intelligence. TopGearFreak ^Talk 16:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think there's consensus for deleting Perlovsky's theory of logic and the mind. That's just a badly written history of logic with a link to Perlovsky's stuff at the end. It's still not clear what to do about Neural modeling fields, which is more like a technical paper. If that's kept, it will need a major rewrite, which is going to be a tough job. Maybe trim it down to a brief note on what the subject is about, with a few links to papers, other work, and related neural net articles. --John Nagle (talk) 17:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. unanimous agreement, nomination withdrawn Mgm|^(talk) 09:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Infanta Adelgundes, Duchess of Guimarães

This biography fails WP:NOT (Wikipedia articles are not genealogical entries) and WP:BIO (the subject has not received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources). Born the daughter of a long-deposed ex-king of Portugal, she appears to have done nothing of note in her life, and appears to be covered only in two brief genealogical entries (of which this article is essentially an expanded version) on websites whose reliability is not immediately apparent. Sandstein 21:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn on account of the notability provided by the coverage in Christensen (thanks, Caponer!). I'm not impressed by the regency-in-absentia itself, though; the monarchy being deposed, that would seem to be a wholly empty office. Sandstein 06:33, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:04, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The German Wikipedia's article on this person lists the memoirs of another royal as a reference: Quelle: von Bayern, Irmingard Prinzessin von: Jugenderinnerungen 1923-1950. St. Ottilien 2000. S. 114 -- Eastmain (talk) 23:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As I said for Sultana bint Abdulaziz Al-Saud, "While notability is not inherited in most cases, royals are an exception: by its very nature, royalty is inherited." It's one thing to have an article on an average person descended from royalty (I remember reading somewhere that the majority of English people are descended from Edward III), but the daughter of a king — whether deposed or not doesn't matter — is reasonably to be expected to have sources written about her, especially as she lived to a significant age and married the son of another monarch. Nyttend (talk) 00:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the new paragraph I've begun:

Regent-in-absentia

Between 1920 and 1928, Adelgundes acted as the regent-in-absentia^[1] on behalf of her nephew and Miguelist claimant to the Portuguese throne, Duarte Nuno, Duke of Braganza, who was only 12 years old when his father Miguel renounced his claim to the throne in favor of his son. At the beginning of her regency in 1920, Adelgundes was created 7th Duchess of Guimarães.^[1] In 1921, she authored a manifesto outlining the House of Braganza's goals for the restoration of the Portuguese monarchy.

[Note: this website erroneously states the beginning of her regency as 1910 but Duarte Nuno did not became claimant until 1920.]

Her regency is also mentioned at the Wikipedia article for Duarte Nuno, Duke of Braganza.

Another Wikipedia article for Archduke Karl Pius of Austria, Prince of Tuscany notes that Adelgundes was his godmother while Pope Pius X was his godfather.

--Caponer (talk) 03:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have seen more obscure royals than this with Wikipedia biographies, being the daughter of a king (even deposed) and acting as regent-in-absentia for (at the time) a relatively recently deposed dynasty does add up to notability, Wikipedia is not paper, but the article could explain more clearly the context of Portuguese royalty and claims to the throne. PatGallacher (talk) 03:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. per WP:SNOW Mgm|^(talk) 09:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hallball

WP:NFT. Disputed prod. IceCreamAntisocial (talk) 21:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable in any way, has no sources of any kind, this is ltierally something someone made up in school one day lol.--Patton 123 21:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete WP:NFT Non notable made up game. Paste (talk) 21:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Unverifiability is not a speedy deletion criterion. Uncle G (talk) 21:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All of the reasons that I expounded in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hall Ball apply to this, too. It's unverifiable, and outright false. No, these schoolchildren did not invent the idea of hitting a ball up and down a corridor. (For starters, the prior deleted article at this title, written two years ago by another group of schoolchildren coming to Wikipedia to lay claim to this game, claims that the game of Hallball was invented in 2006. That wasn't true, either.) Delete. Uncle G (talk) 21:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually they're both wrong. Lab ball was invented even earlier. I should know, I played it. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Entirely non-notable, makes frivolous claims. Delete soon. ----Brandon (TehBrandon) (talk) 22:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Unless this is a new version of Calvinball. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 22:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:04, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (G4) — blatant recreation of deleted material; classic attempt to shirk deletion by recreating article under slightly different name. Nice try. MuZemike (talk) 06:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 17:59, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cashmaster

Non notable company producing non notable cash machines.. Paste (talk) 21:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete - Not notable. Most of the "sources" are www.cashmaster.com.--Pecopteris (talk) 21:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's very spammy. - Richard Cavell (talk) 23:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article has reliable sources, including http://www.business7.co.uk/business-news/breaking-business-news/2007/12/14/cashmaster-spends-300-000-on-new-machinery-97298-20251274/ and http://www.extendedretail.com/eu/pastissue/article.asp?art=269375&issue=189 As well, the company has been discussed in the Scottish Parliament, as verified by the links to that site. The fact that some of the references are to the company's own site does not detract from the fact that notability is established by the reliable sources. Similarly, "spamminess" can be fixed like any other style issue, and is not an argument for AfD. -- Eastmain (talk) 23:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - one of the reasons why I like to delete spam is because, in my view, any article that is created as spam will be forever tainted by it. The only way to properly de-taint the text is to start again, from scratch, with a neutral author. I realise that the present text could be altered so that it doesn't look like spam, but I argue that as long as it's built on spam, it remains tainted. - Richard Cavell (talk) 00:33, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. An article's creator does not own the article. An existing stub is always a help for a good editor who wants to expand an article. And sometimes articles that look like spam are written by inexperienced editors with no connection to the subject. -- Eastmain (talk) 03:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete = Cashmaster is mentioned in passing in a sentence in the Scottish Parliament discussion. (The discussion lasted over eight hours.) The Extended Retail Solutions article is a press release as is the Business7 article. iExtenso says on its about page: "iXtenso presents all of the suppliers, products and services demanded by the retail sector while featuring this information in-depth." Therefore, the presence of Cashmaster products on their page isn't meaningful. (You might as well link to Amazon.com.) Portfolio has more than half a million company profiles, so this link also doesn't show notability. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 07:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is factual and accurate to the companies history as per the references and further research. Companies such as De la rue, Wincor Nixdorf, and companies under the Group Halma PLC have analogous pages and citations. Please note: Spam is an attempt to force a message on people who would not otherwise choose to receive it, this cannot be regarded as spam as the information is historic, meaningful and serves a purpose. (Cone28 (talk) 11:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cone28 (talk • contribs)

Keep In reply to 'Paste's comment that the company produces "non notable cash machines". In actual fact the company produce machines that count cash by weighing it. A genuine and notable alternative to counting by hand and a friction banknote counters. The wikipedia page for this actually comments on weight based counting. Surely this means the technology is in fact notable. Stewart1985 (talk) 16:21, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As far as I am aware cash counting machines that weigh the cash are by n means restricted to this company.Paste (talk) 17:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You are right in this fact but as stated previously there are numerous reasons for the posting to be valid. Saying that the cash machines are non notable would bring other posts into question. If the machines were mentioned on their own there would be no requirement for the 'cashmaster' post I can agree with you there. But as there are other reasons for the post being made in the first place it would only be neglegant not to mention what the company do and would in turn make the post a waste of time. The original post for the technology has been clearly referenced. Stewart1985 (talk) 18:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Stewart1985 has edited only this page and the Cashmaster article. Cone28 has edited only this page and the Cashmaster article, except for edits to add a link to the Cashmaster article to the article for the town of Rosyth and the article for banknote counters. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 09:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have never heard of this company before, so why have an article on it? You may as well write an article on the family-run sweet shop at the end of my street. TopGearFreak ^Talk 16:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 16:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable and encyclopedic entry on a company more than 30 years old. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I feel compelled to comment again, User:TopGearFreak is correct the arguments being used would mean that we should have an article on every company that any info can be found about on the web, albeit he is possibly being sarcastic to make a point. User:ChildofMidnight seems to be saying that we keep any article that is written in an 'encyclopedic' form and is on a company that has existed for 30 years. Cashmaster is a reputable company, I am sure, who produce good cash counting machines but that does not mean they should appear in an encyclopedia. There must also be at least some doubt about whether the two main contributors to the article are of a neutral point of view as expressed by User:Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth. Paste (talk) 08:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My argument would support keeping any article on a company 30 years old that is notable and has an encyclopedic article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's certainly a logical and sensible position to take. I agree with it entirely; we should keep articles that are encyclopedic and are about a notable subject. However, I don't think that this article is about a notable subject, and much of the article reads like an unencyclopedic advertisement, so I think this article fails to match the position that we should keep encyclopedic articles about notable subjects. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 00:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to fix any elements in the article that aren't appropriate. As far as its notability, it's not a clear cut case. It has some citations, but they could be better. At least we strongly agree about what we disagree about. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I must agree with User:ChildofMidnight here. The argument is starting to move away from the notability of the subject and more towards the credibility and neutral position of myself. As is part of wikipedia lisitngs, the listing is not owned by the initial publisher but is free to be edited by everybody in order to improve it and make it more credible. I feel that enough arguments have been made to support the notability of the article but I do agree that improvements may be necessary to make it conform to all guidelines. I would like to state that this is not my responsibility to fix this and therefore my or any other users neutral view point has no more bearing on the argument. Also in reply to the comment made byUser:TopGearFreak that he has never heard of the company before as a reason for deletion, this is surely not a valid arguement when the whole point in an encyclopedia is to educate and inform. I hardly believe that anybody has heard of every company that has an article about them on wikipedia. Nor do I feel that an international company with offices in many different countries can be compared to a family run sweet shop with a handful of employees. Stewart1985 (talk) 09:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is solidly on the notability of the corporation. I looked at the article's references and commented on them above. The references barely give any information at all. The offices could be mail drops for all we know. (This is very common, and not a slight on Cashmaster, but it does mean that they're not some continent-striding behemoth. :) Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 23:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Neither myself or the references claim that the company is 'some continent-striding behemoth' and neither do the rules for wikipedia state that the company in question has to be a worldwide cash cow. My argument is that comparing this company to a sweet shop is not a necessary argument to make for deletion. The fact that it is not factual is one thing and the blatantly obvious point that it is clear sarcasm just supports my point that it is not a valid argument. Just like a wikipedia article this argument must be based on fact and notability, not on someones personal opinion of the company. I'm sure there are many other companies with articles on wikipedia with one office and less staff than Cashmaster. Not to divert from this argument but to support mine further, Avalon Guitars is one of many companies that I have found in the same catagory as Cashmaster that has been around for a lot less time. Further more they have a lot more information but their only reference is their own website. If this is acceptable for the way it is written then surely the Cashmaster article with a much greater number of references can be edited in a way that is deemed more acceptable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stewart1985 (talk • contribs) 09:25, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't an argument that's considered to be persuasive. Speaking to the other comments made here, I feel that you're focusing on the way people are saying things and not on what they say. Please look beyond an editor's humorous ways of putting things and engage directly with the meat of the arguments. There are no references that show notability in the article. My comment at 07:20, 18 November 2008 details this. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 10:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment I wasn't just commenting on just the suitability of the refernces but also on yours and User:TopGearFreak comments that because you have never heard of Cashmaster that this is a reason for deletion. If you look back User:TopGearFreak never mentioned anything to do with the references. Sugar coating these kind of comments in humour and sarcasm doesn't make them valid or factual. My main reasoning for pointing to another article was that not hearing about a company is not a valid reason for deletion. You have backed up your opinion saying the same thing on several occasions, the comment made by User:TopGearFreak is only personal opinion. As for your comment on the size of the organisation this has no bearing on the argument whether you are relating it to the references or not. The article doesn't claim the company is a massive international company only that they do have offices in other countries. The size of these is not important to the notability of the company and therefore I feel it brings nothing to the argument mentioning it especially in a sarcastic way. Stewart1985 (talk) 12:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 04:06, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Occurrence-in-subtuple problem

Contested prod. Unsourced, orphaned, badly written article containing an OR derivation of a trivial formula. Delete and Transwiki to Wikibooks; maybe they have a use for it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:OR and no indication of WP:NOTABILITY (which would require some sources to establish). No scholar hits. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 23:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is of course one of those cases where the problem could go by different names, so google could miss it if you use the exact title of the article. I'd like to try to find out if it's on French Wikipedia or the like under some other name. Obviously the person who wrote it is not a native speaker of English, so it's plausible that he or she would have put in elsewhere first. Michael Hardy (talk) 05:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I've sent an email to the original author of the article inquiring about scholarly sources and Wikipedia articles in other languages. Michael Hardy (talk) 06:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Silly rabbit. Could revise my opinion if reliable sources are provided to demonstrate this problem is not OR and is notable. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:53, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR. (If the author responds, I would merge with regulation of gene expression because it's not really used for anything else). - Mgm|^(talk) 09:19, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He has responded. He may cite some source within the article sometime soon, but I'm not clear about details. I see a distinct possibility that (1) this article may get deleted on the grounds that it's probably original research and then (2) a few months from now fully refereed sources will be there to get cited and the article will be recreated. If that happens, I'd guess the thing to do would be to restore the edit history. Are there precedents? Michael Hardy (talk) 03:58, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why would you want poor content like this to weigh down the regulation of gene expression article? Narayanese (talk) 06:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you consider this poor content? Michael Hardy (talk) 20:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 16:32, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Davidson

Non-notable high school teacher, fails WP:BIO by a country mile. The article asserts that he "gained statewide notoriety" through nothing more than alerting county officials to a rule disallowing a candidate from standing for county sheriff, but the websites of both newspapers cited (with articles dated in June and November of this year) don't seem to have heard of him, and "Gregory Davidson" + "Oklahoma" turns up zero hits on Google News. Meets none of the criteria for politicians or educators in WP:BIO, no verifiable sources. RGTraynor 20:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Ah, a perfect example of WP:ONEEVENT. Maybe we should keep him just so we can use him as an example! Naah, not worth the trouble... DARTH PANDA ^duel 20:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to wikinews? or is it too dateed dfor them? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no third party reliable non-primary sources to establish notability. He doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN either, he's doens't hold major political office nor has he recieved significant press coverage.--Patton 123 21:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I Googled him, nothing came up. If the world's best search engine doesn't list him, why should the web's best encyclopedia have an article on him? TopGearFreak ^Talk 16:23, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 04:06, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glen Swan

Article fails to meet notability criteria for WP:BIO or WP:GNG. This is a bio for an "online community manager" of two RPG games. This appears to be a glorified title for a customer service rep. The company website doesn't mention his name, although individual seems to have a knack for self-promotion through game site interviews. — CactusWriter | ^needles 20:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Maybe I should call myself "Online Maintenance Manager" and get myself an article. Too bad I'd fail WP:BIO (as would he). DARTH PANDA ^duel 20:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any reliable sources on which a verifiable article could be based. I'd imagine that - given his profession - any sources that did exist would be readily available on-line. Guest9999 (talk) 00:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 04:06, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leon Bolier

No substantial coverage in third party, reliable sources. No "lasting and historical interest and impact" which it looks like it fails per WP:Music Oo7565 (talk) 20:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - He shows up in a Google News search, albet with non-English sources, but that may point to his notability. Keep until translation proves otherwise. DARTH PANDA ^duel 20:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. One of the Dutch sources in Google News shows he played at a large event and puts him on par with Tiesto. The other mentions his name in the summary, but cannot be found in the article. I have not read the Polish articles. I'm leaning to keeping based on the material already in the article. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:25, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Just wanted to say that he is currently one of my favorite artists and that I frequently hear his music on the radio. Although he is probably completely unknown in the U.S., I believe that the English Wikipedia should also cover topics which are not related to the United States. So, definetly keep it, I don't even understand why you would want to delete it... just because it may be irrelevant to you, doesn't mean it's irrelevant to everyone else! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.246.7.100 (talk) 23:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I agree with panda. The article can always be nominated later if the non-English sources are weak. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Martynowicz

WP:Notability. No indication is given that this name is of encyclopedic interest. The author's interest is evidently based on his or her bearing this surname. Severe WP:Coatracking and non-sequituring, and nothing is said about the name itself other than its etymology as a patronymic for Martin, essentially a WP:DICDEF. —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOTMEMORIAL, WP:OR, etc. Unless there are famous people under this surname (i.e. it was a lineage of Kings or something), it doesn't pass WP:N. DARTH PANDA ^duel 20:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:N WP:NOR WP:NOT WP:V.... all failed. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 20:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wiktionary's name appendix (and severely cull) if the origin of the name can be confirmed. Otherwise delete, majority of the article is links and discussing patriarchs instead of the subject. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- While granting that the obvious can sometimes be incorrect, I'll note that Martynowicz = Martyn + -owicz (son of) is transparent. —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Still working on research for it, of course it is in my interest to have this subject matter available and there is actually relavence in terms of famous individuals, see: Suchekomnaty_Coat_of_Arm. The basic nature of it is due to the fact that this is my first submission. More content will be added/updated. —Brian Martynowicz (talk) 15:53, 17 November 2008 (EST)
  - Response. Might you mean Suchekomnaty coat of arms? I don't see how that page is at all relevant. Since you're a new user, it may be helpful to start taking a look at WP:N and its derivative branches and the WP: links we listed above. That way, you can get a better sense as to what should be included in Wikipedia. Thanks, and happy wiki-ing! DARTH PANDA^duel 21:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Response: How is it relevant? The family Martynowicz Falls under the Suchekomnaty Coat of Arms, how can that be anymore relevant? I did glance through them actually (WP: Links), however due to the fact that I am at work I cannot look at them in depth. Whenever I get off tonight 17:00EST I'll have a better opportunity to make my case. —Brian Martynowicz (talk) 16:06, 17 November 2008 (EST)
      - Response. Following this logic, do you believe that every single family under a coat of arms should have a Wikipedia page? No such precedent has been set. DARTH PANDA ^duel 21:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Response: Okay how about this, if thats the case then why should there be a wiki for any coat of arms? Or should it only be the important ones? Precedence is not justification for deletion is it? If thats the case then how was wiki started?. —Brian Martynowicz (talk) 16:14, 17 November 2008 (EST)
        This is Wikipedia, not Wiki. Uncle G (talk) 21:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Response. I'm not exactly sure what you're saying. I don't believe the Coat of Arms should be deleted, I just believe the particular family name that you are touting is not notable and does not pass Wikipedia's notability requirements. DARTH PANDA ^duel 21:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Response: I am by no means solicting my last name, theres no information on it available to the public. I would say by no stretch of the imagination there are tens, if not hundreds of thousands of people that are directly traceable back to some form of Martynowicz Lineage. How is this not notable?—Brian Martynowicz (talk) 16:17, 17 November 2008 (EST)
        Before you continue to raise factors that aren't treated as relevant to establishing notability for Wikipedia's purpose, I'd like to suggest that you read the references others have left for you and use them as your guides. I've left a welcome message on your talk page to supply you with additional links to the ways of Wikipedia. —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:25, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Largo, I saw your message thanks for the warm welcome. I checked your first arguement towards deletion and I think you are incorrect. I am in no way influencing someones opinion on the subject matter. I can see how it would be biased in terms of me having the last name, but I am merely providing information and not trying to sway someones opinion one way or another. I'll need more time to address the other guides unfortunately :(--Bmartynowicz (talk) 21:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Nothing you'd written up to the point where I commented gave any reason to think that you were writing the article other than because it's your family name. But regardless of that, I was referring primarily to notability, not bias. The fact that someone who lived 300 years ago and had a surname has umpteen thousand descendants living today isn't a basis for assessing notability. Having umpteen thousand descendants living today isn't a distinguishing feat for someone who lived 300 years ago. Notable families are along the lines of Kennedys (specifically, descendants of Joseph P.), Bushes (back to Prescott, at least), Rockefellers, Rothschilds, Barrymores, Gandhis, Bronfmans, Roosevelts (in no particular order). —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If "there's no information on it available to the public", as the article's creator is telling us, then this subject is unverifiable, in contraventional of our basic Wikipedia:Verifiability policy, which is a strong argument for deletion according to our Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Uncle G (talk) 21:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well nothing available to the public as far as information on the internet. Need more time to go to some hard copies.--70.17.201.201 (talk) 23:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or Transwiki Delete, as there is no point to it. Or, if it has to be kept, transwiki to Wiktionary. TopGearFreak ^Talk 16:27, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 16:39, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't had time to do more through investigation, stupid life getting in the way. I wish there were some people out there to maybe help me out....--Bmartynowicz (talk) 19:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 04:04, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pathfinders: In the Company of Strangers Film/Movie

This article about a future film fails notability criteria for WP:FILM. It was created by a probable WP:COI SPA (User:Pathfindersfilm). An internet search reveals this is an independent film scheduled for a summer 2009 release. There is no significant coverage -- the only info is from IMDb, Myspace, YouTube and filmmakers' press releases. — CactusWriter | ^needles 20:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:CRYSTAL. If this ends up being a notable film, it'll have its own article, but as of now, no. DARTH PANDA ^duel 20:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's simply not enough here to hang a hat on. The article doesn't even mention a studio, release date ... most of the Ghits are just parroting this article (or vice versa). No predjudice against recreation (with a properly formatted article title) should this amount to anything. 23skidoo (talk) 22:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. G6, non-controversial housekeeping, page is a duplicate Mgm|^(talk) 09:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

San Jose Sharks roster

orphaned and unmaintained fork of Template:San Jose Sharks roster ccwaters (talk) 20:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect - I haven't seen a precident that shows that other baseball teams have their own roster page, so I see no reason that the San Jose Sharks should be any different. Dump it back into the main article (San Jose Sharks). DARTH PANDA^duel 20:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment NHL rosters are handled as templates (Category:National_Hockey_League_roster_templates) and already included in articles like the main team pages (See San Jose Sharks). The article in question is an unused and unexplained fork of the Sharks template. ccwaters (talk) 20:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Template:San Jose Sharks roster is suffice, all teams share the same template style. Black ngold29 20:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The template is obviously the more well-maintained and oldest of the two (making this a copy), but why do team rosters have to be templated? They're only needed on the team page. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also transcluded into a grand list of rosters and the article on the current season: Harmless, and avoids having to keep three different lists identical. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and hell, speedy it as it's WP:SNOWing. This is a copy of an existing template that is already transcluded to both San Jose Sharks and 2008–09 San Jose Sharks season. It has no value as a standalone article. Reso lute 21:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Baby bat

neologisms‎; little to no widespread use, no references Beach drifter (talk) 19:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NEO; since it's just a slang term for something else, the article can't be more than a WP:DICDEF. If someone wants to recast the focus of the article on the clothing line and can indicate its notability, then I'll switch to Keep. —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Oh hey, it has an UrbanDictionary article! Those are definitely reliable! Anyways, jokes aside, this fails WP:N and should be redirected to Bat. DARTH PANDA^duel 20:04, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- To bat? Even though its meaning (as opposed to its origin) isn't related to that use of the word? I thought you were going to say Goth subculture. —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response. I haven't seen "baby bat" used to widely refer to what it claims to be, yet I would venture a guess that someone searching for baby bat would be looking for bats? I'm unsure on this one, so I would obviously like to hear some more opinions on this. DARTH PANDA ^duel 20:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with fire and storm: I'm with Darth Panda; I've seen sources more unreliable than UrbanDictionary, but they tend to be written with crayon on torn-off sides of cardboard boxes. Ravenswing 20:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete You know its not a good sign when the first thing up on Google are photos of an actual baby bat. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 20:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable neologism, possibly made up by the editor who created the page, delete. Theseeker4 (talk) 20:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bat, or perhaps Bat#Reproduction. It's a remotely conceivable search term. Someone might want to know the proper term for a baby bat, and the main bat article gives them the answer. Zagalejo^^^ 23:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate the terms - to bat and Goth subculture. - Richard Cavell (talk) 23:25, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bat#Reproduction since the other meaning has no reliable sources. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's my view, whether it is policy or not, that disambig pages are allowed to contain entries that would not warrant their own article because of sourcing, notability, etc. I think that disambig pages ought to err on the side of inclusionism. - Richard Cavell (talk) 09:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I can't agree with that. Otherwise you have a case where the article John is open to every one of the world's million-plus Johns adding their own names (I'd object if someone added you to the Richard page!), and everyone who makes up a slang use for a word can add a hatnote to an article under that word reading, "X may also refer to this word I made up one day". WP:N, WP:V, WP:NEO, WP:MADEUP all need to apply. —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm with Largo; there's no evidence that this is an actual widely spread term. My own prejudice is that disambiguation pages should err on the side of verifiability and accuracy. Ravenswing 14:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TMD (rapper)

Non-notable/WP:HOAX. Fails WP:V. Prod removed without comment. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MSB MUSIC. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 19:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 19:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:N and WP:MUSIC criteria. Has no indication of any charted hits. No albums released by major labels or by significant independent labels. No indication of any major tour. No golden albums. Virtually no coverage in a google search, save this wikipedia article. Theseeker4 (talk) 19:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSIC by a mile, google turns up jack. Probabally a COI as well, article was created by Msbmusic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (TMD's record label is called MSB Music). Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 20:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 20:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 16:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:40, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anita Brolly

Makeup artist for a handful of productions. Doesn't appear to be notable per WP:BIO. There doesn't appear to be any sources for a biographical article available...only the 5-10 credits as a makeup artist and/or hair stylist. Contested prod. Onorem ♠Dil 19:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being the makeup artist for 8 movies does not fulfill the requirements for bios of entertainers or actors. No evidence of significant awards, or notability demonstrated from third party sources, or that she has made groundbreaking advances in her field, therfore fails WP notability requirements, and should be deleted. Theseeker4 (talk) 19:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nor should it fulfill these requirements. A makeup artist is neither an entertainer nor an actor. I believe other rules apply, though I have not found which those would be yet. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:30, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable. Mentions are trivial. So there are no non trivial independent sources. Obina (talk) 12:04, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - being employed within the film industry is not equivalent to having notability within the field. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 16:43, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:06, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Rosenberg (murder)

NN, and poorly written article Computerjoe 's talk 18:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Poorly written is irrelevant to notability. Also I don't see the box on the page indicating it has been nominated for deletion. PatGallacher (talk) 19:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Argh my script messed up. I'll add it in a bit. Computerjoe 's talk 19:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Someone else did. Computerjoe 's talk 19:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article lacks anything which asserts notability. Computerjoe 's talk 19:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet notability for criminal acts, since it lacks coverage from multiple, independent sources. Google does not have much except little blips from regional sources. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 22:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. People are murdered every day. Nothing outstanding about this case. Reso lute 22:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 16:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unless he was murdered by a famous killer, there is no reason to keep this. TopGearFreak ^Talk 16:56, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:38, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vamsidhar

Article about a person with unclear notability Beagel (talk) 18:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - poorly sourced (and written), does not seem to pass WP:POLITICIAN or the general notability guidelines. Possible conflict of interest given the username of the creator.--Boffob (talk) 18:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete Not notable at all, and the article is awfully written with poor markup. Rtyq2 (talk) 18:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete not notable, bad written! abf /talk to me/ 19:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:No notability whatsoever. Winner of some unknown award .--Deepak D'Souza 05:22, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Sunk Loto. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:04, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Big Picture Lies

This article has existed for years, and has not developped into anything more than a citationless two-sentence stub. It is a permastub, and it fails notability for music. Neelix (talk) 18:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per precedent. That it is a stub is meaningless for an AFD, as being a stub isn't against policy. It is an album by someone notable enough to have an article here. It was released on a Sony label, which qualifies as a major label as well. The artist has released multiple albums. WP:NALBUMS says two interesting things, including In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia. as well as saying albums must been general notability standards. Most of the AFDs I have seen have considered all albums by notable artists with multiple releases as notable, defacto. I tend to agree. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 19:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The section that you cite prefaces the points you mention by saying that All articles on albums, singles or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. This article has no such coverage, and considering it has not gathered any sources in the three and a half years that it has existed, it is unlikely to gather them in the future. Neelix (talk) 20:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And released albums from bands with multiple albums are considered defacto notable because of the band, per consensus. It is basically the reason the band is notable and written about to begin with. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 12:36, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect. Since this will probably always remain a stub, the content should be merged with Sunk Loto the album's creator. LinguistAtLarge 19:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Contrary to nomination, passes WP:MUSIC as it is an album on a major record by a notable band. Size of the article is not justification for deletion, only for improvement, and maybe for merging. Theseeker4 (talk) 19:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect with Sunk Loto. There is not enough information to sustain a separate article, but it is sufficiently notable as per Theseeker4. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:33, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endless Damnation

Non-notable demo, fails WP:MUSIC. No coverage in independent reliable sources. SummerPhD (talk) 18:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no source for notability. Demos aren't notables unless they pass the general notability guidelines, and this one obviously doesn't.--Boffob (talk) 18:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it is not an official release nor passes general notability standards. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 19:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage; fails WP:MUSIC#Albums. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 20:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hell or Hell in Christian beliefs: it's a reasonable description of a significant part of mainstream Christian theology, so it's not that unreasonable of a redirect. Nyttend (talk) 00:08, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But is it a commonly used phrase? I don't remember that phrase in Catechism *shudder*. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 00:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Neither WP:COI, nor the size of the country nor the language of the sources are reasons for deletion. This said, notability is and here consensus is that none within the relevant guidelines exists. So Why 21:30, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Max Kaur

Article created by SPA and mainly edited by SPA IP. Because of the user page of the creator of this article and the IP location, there is reason to believe that this page is created and edited by Max Kaur himself and therefore there is violation of the WP:COI policy. Edits are made in destructive way without giving any explanation. Also, the notability of this person is not clear. Being a party chairman adviser in some small Eastern European country is not enough to establish the notability. There is no search results for Max Kaur in English (except this wiki article and its clones). As all references are given only in Estonian, somebody from WP:Estonia has to verify if these sources are enough to establish the notability of this person. Beagel (talk) 18:04, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons given by nominator. --Boffob (talk) 18:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - While WP:COI is not a deletion concern, WP:N definitely is. If notability can be established, my vote will change, but as of now, the lack of English sources points to his lack of notability. DARTH PANDA ^duel 20:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Where in the notability guidelines does it say that Estonian sources count for any less than English ones? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:25, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:25, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:25, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because he's a member of the Russian Academic Society of Estonia. Also This nomination mashes several faulty assumptions together.

Violation of the COI policy is not a valid reason for deletion.
The notability isssue should be if a party chairman is notable period, the size of the country does not matter. Wikipedia is a global publication.
While sources are preferred in English on the English language Wikipedia, sources in Estonian are totally acceptable. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:38, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing in WP:Politician suggests that party chairmen are notable and anyway he isn't a party chairman he's an adviser to a party chairman which is definitely not notable. Valenciano (talk) 12:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't know any Estonian, but just by looking at the cited sources I can see that several of them are newspaper and magazine articles that mention the subject in the headlines, meaning that they are substantially about the subject so getting him through the general notability guideline. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see no basis for assuming that membership in the society given is intrinsically notable, and nothing in the bio to indicate that the person is other than a minor political figure without any significant elective or appointive position. the highlight of his career seems to be when he declined to run for mayor of Kiviõli, a town of 7400 people. DGG (talk) 05:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." Max Kaur is a most mentioned Centre Party politician in Estonian media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.106.106.146 (talk) 12:44, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Disney Princess Enchanted Tales: Follow Your Dreams. So Why 21:34, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disney Princess Enchanted Tales

Unnotable future film release with no actual release date; even with a release, this is not a notable direct to DVD release. Fails WP:N and WP:NFF. The two "references" are a blog and a licensing magazine article. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:CRYSTAL. When it is actually released, we can talk about notability (in which case, I would probably vote for a merge/redirect to Disney Princess, where it already has a section). DARTH PANDA ^duel 20:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the first Enchanted Tales film article. The article currently states that production has been cancelled, therefore there is no need for an article. However the fact a sequel was planned and cancelled (and there are sources cited) is worth adding to the previous film's article in a "Cancelled sequel" section. 23skidoo (talk) 22:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. (also makes a good search term for being partial title of existing film) Skidoo is right, the fact it was announced and cancelled should be covered in the main article.- Mgm|^(talk) 09:44, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: This would make a nice merge Ryan4314 (talk) 00:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 04:04, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FK ŽAK Sombor

No source the club exist, only FK Radnicki Sombor appeared in some source Matthew_hk t c 17:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found source that another club ŽAK Kikinda club currently in fourth level (Vojvodina East), but not this one. Matthew_hk t c 17:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Google searsch zero hit on RSSSF archive. Matthew_hk t c 17:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:12, 17 November 2008

(UTC)

Delete per above, I did a little google search and came to the same conclusion as you. I found this List of Serbian teams a good article and that name clearly is not found on it. Govvy (talk) 21:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 21:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & Govvy. Giant Snowman 21:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the list from smso.net above, just a cache of wikipedia. Matthew_hk t c 11:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Matthew_hv and Govvy have this pretty much covered. What's more, this club certainly didn't win the Serbian Cup in 2007 and 2008, as the article claims. Bettia (rawr!) 12:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- After searching on Google, the only team of this name I could find seem to be all in management games. Something tells me we can put this one in the box marked Hoax. Bettia (rawr!) 11:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Kamen Rider Agito. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kamen Rider G4

Purely in-universe reiteration of plot material for a character who appeared in one movie. No material warranting a split at this stage. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:BIO. Elluminate (talk) 16:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is part of the series' plot in a variety of ways. Fractyl (talk) 18:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No reliable source for notability (WP:N), no evidence that it deserves a separate article from Kamen Rider Agito. I'd mention WP:FICT, but since it's an essay I'll just stick to the general notability guidelines.--Boffob (talk) 18:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back into Kamen Rider Agito. This was made as part of a split and I don't understand why it was necessary to make a page for G4.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 19:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 19:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back into Kamen Rider Agito per all versions of WP:FICT, and, well, common sense for what to do with inappropriate splits. Does not seem to have independent notability. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:31, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. Due to excellent research input by several of the editors present, WP:RS issues have been resolved. I am happy to withdraw my nomination, and The Reverb Syndicate can enjoy their Wikipedia niche. Thank you, everyone, for a spirited discussion! Ecoleetage (talk) 19:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Reverb Syndicate

Obscure band with a woefully unreferenced article. A pair of brief chats on CBC and an interview on a college radio station hardly qualifies as the "multiple non-trivial" media sources required of WP:BAND; it fails all other aspects of WP:BAND, too. Ecoleetage (talk) 16:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References have now been added for all quotes/facts/etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by V1i2n3c4e5 (talk • contribs) 17:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever, I'll come back to this in a year or two once they meet more of the requirements.

Comment The new references link to the band's web site, not to independent media resources. The article still falls short on WP:RS Ecoleetage (talk) 17:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Delete~~ I declined the speedy due to a likely misunderstanding of WP:MUSIC in that I thought a tour of the UK satisfied as an int'l tour as it wasn't their home country. I find no evidence of reliable source coverage of this band. StarM 17:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC) Change to keep per sources found and added. There are still some legit questions re notability and performances, but they appear to have received significant RS coverage. StarM 13:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete as being really borderline, but just south of the border (which is bad for a Canadian band, right?). As for speedy delete, declining was the right thing anyway, as they appear to at least make a claim of notability. And by the way, they sound like a great band to drink beer and eat crab legs to, just not quite notable yet. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 19:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Will change when sources magically appear. Sam ^Blab 21:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It turns out there are many articles about this band in the Ottawa Citizen. I've added four of those references just now. There's enough for WP:MUSIC criterion #1. Keep. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I saw those, hense my 'weak', but wp:rs is not just about a magical number of sources, and these sources don't seem to leave the city limits. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 12:28, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It also appears they have a friend at the Ottawa Citizen in Fateema Sayani, who keeps writing about them over and over. That sort of dilutes the credibility of the coverage. Ecoleetage (talk) 13:38, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think you can assume that Fateema Sayani is a personal friend of the band's just because she's written about them more than once. Bearcat (talk) 15:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The credibility of this source is seriously problematic -- one writer endlessly hyping a band is suspect. Ecoleetage (talk) 17:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

She's an entertainment columnist, whose job is to write about the local music scene. All it proves is that they're generating enough buzz to warrant coverage from a reporter whose job is to write about concerts that are generating buzz. The Ottawa Citizen is not a newspaper that would be expected to give an entertainment journalist much "write about whoever the hell you want whether our readers have ever heard of them or not" latitude, either — it's a major newspaper-of-record owned by a company that's not exactly known for going out of its way to support anything terribly far removed from mainstream interest, not an anything-goes community tabloid. Bearcat (talk) 20:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it proves nothing of the sort. It would appear the Ottawa music scene is fairly small if these guys keep turning up repeatedly in the local music column. And there is no evidence of "generating buzz" -- where did that come from (outside of the band's web site)? Your opinions on the newspaper and its owners -- while interesting for those of us who do not have access to the publication or know of its history -- are, nonetheless, less than relevant to the discussion of the ban'd notability or lack thereof. Ecoleetage (talk) 18:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. References are local coverage, doesn't meet the notability criteria in my opinion. A band should have done more before I would support it. PK T(alk) 12:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've also added a reference confirming that they've toured well beyond Ottawa (including at least one show in, er, New York City), from a fairly substantial article in Chart — which, if anybody in this discussion has never heard of it, is one of the two nationally-distributed Canadian music magazines (Exclaim! being the other) that's sufficiently important to confer notability all by itself even if there weren't already other sources in the article. So that's WP:MUSIC #1 and #4. Keep. Bearcat (talk) 15:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not that it's all too important, but just searching them on Google shows the first 150 or so hits to be directly related to the band.—Preceding unsigned comment added by V1i2n3c4e5 (talk • contribs) 17:13, 18 November 2008

Comment I just read the Chart coverage and, I am sorry to to say, it only reconfirms their total lack of notability (it also appears that Chart will write about anyone with a guitar, but that's another matter). As for the coverage: being invited to be part of a showcase (usually a line up of a half-dozen to a dozen obscure bands) is not the same thing as having a show (which did not take place here). The band appears to have been invited to be part of a line-up in some obscure offering by an obscure DJ for whom Google searches turn up nothing of value: [20] and [21]. A Google search to confirm the band's New York adventure turns up nothing: [22] -- there is no shortage of legitimate music media in New York, and none of those outlets even bothered to cite the band. Again, these guys just don't have any notability. (And will someone please remove the references in the article that tap the band's web site as the source of alleged accomplishments?). Ecoleetage (talk) 17:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – What matters, though, for the purposes of the general notability guideline (or for WP:MUSIC criterion #1), is that the coverage exists (and is independent of the band, and is non-trivial). It is not required that the coverage verify some additional accomplishment. At the article now stands, there are two articles in Chart, four in the Ottawa Citizen, and appearances on CBC Radio One. Furthermore, there is nothing in the WP:N guideline that discourages the use of local sources. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:36, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I politely and respectfully disagree. Four articles in one newspaper, all authored by the same writer, raises a huge red flag -- even by the hype-happy music media standards, this is dubious. If you read the The Chart coverage (rather than just acknowledge it is there), it painfully exposes the band has zero notability, and it states they were part of the line-up of an obscure New York showcase (for which there is no independent verification that they ever performed -- no New York media coverage of their gig exists). And the two brief CBC chats are, quite frankly, completely without substance. Yes, some coverage exists. And if we actually read the coverage and listen to the radio chats, it all circles back to the same fact: a non-notable band with no label, no charted songs, no fan base and no evidence of notability. Ecoleetage (talk) 19:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be a bother, but I removed the reference in the article to Elbo.ws (this appears to be a blog and not appropriate, per WP:RS), and I also removed the references that linked to the band's web site (I think the article would be strengthened by independent media sources and not the band hyping itself). Also, can someone please provide online links to the Ottawa Citizen coverage? As it stands, there is no way to confirm that the coverage is non-trivial. Thanks. Ecoleetage (talk) 19:25, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It actually is possible to confirm it if you go beyond the Internet to search for sources. (Sorry, that sounded snarky. :) ) Anyway, I have my library database results here in front of me: There are 28 articles in the Ottawa Citizen that come up in a search of "The Reverb Syndicate". A large number of them are directory-type listings of the band's performances, so that does not help towards notability. But many of them are either brief non-trivial mentions or substantial coverage. The "Rock born" article is 358 words about the band. The "space oddity" article is 473 words about the band. The "New to" article is briefer but still not directory-like, at 96 words. The "City" article is only 119 words but it confirms they toured England and Scotland. In sum, this does not represent "trivial coverage" according to what the guidelines label as trivial coverage. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Considering your paragraph runs 149 words, we can determine the Citizen’s coverage is not exactly in-depth. And, no, your comment was not snarky – my library doesn’t have access to that newspaper. Ecoleetage (talk) 20:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DUDE!!!1 You are saying bands can't use quotes from their own website to verify notability?! Man, if you take that attitude, and NO new small town band that only plays corner bars and private parties with their own self-released CD will EVER get an article on Wikipedia! ;) DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 19:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the situation here. Bearcat (talk) 20:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chart, not to put too fine a point on it, is the Canadian music magazine of record. Coverage in that magazine is in and of itself sufficient to meet the notability requirements of WP:MUSIC. We don't apply subjective assessments of whether the magazine is being excessively generous in covering "nobodies" or not — if they've written non-trivial content about the band (as opposed to a passing mention in a concert listings section or something like that), then they meet the standard right on its face. Being written about in Chart is the Canadian equivalent of being written about in Rolling Stone. Seriously. Bearcat (talk) 20:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, but there is a problem: it is an article about a band with no label, no charted songs, no fan base, and some gigs in obscure or unidentified venues that have, without fail, gone unnoticed by the major media in every city where they've played. I am sure Chart is wonderful, but the band is just not notable. Ecoleetage (talk) 20:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's as may be, but Wikipedia's notability standards do not require a band to have had mainstream chart hits, to be signed to a major label, to play only notable music venues, to generate local media coverage in every individual city where they play a show, or to be able to quantify a fan base in the millions. Those things obviously support notability when they're present, but the only thing that's required is non-trivial coverage in notable sources that are independent of the band, and that criterion is met here. And to look at one of the concerts that's actually mentioned in the Chart article, the Towne House in Sudbury — bless its crumbling foundations — is kind of an obscure venue, so let me assure you of this: Sudbury isn't a market where bands go out of their way to get a gig for the sake of getting a gig in Sudbury, because it's not a large enough market to pay for the trip all by itself. It's a "hey, what the hell, it's on the way from Ottawa to Winnipeg" market where bands only turn up as part of an organized national cross-Canada tour. So even an obscure venue can still support notability, if it's in a market where, by definition, non-local bands simply aren't even going to show up unless they're in the middle of fulfilling WP:MUSIC's tour criterion. Bearcat (talk) 21:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:BAND is a guideline to help interpret the ability of an article to meet the content policies of WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR; not to judge the fame nor the importance of the subject. If it has been noted in Reliable sources and somebody bothers to write the article, then there is no reason not to keep it. DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability established the usual way. They don't have to be covered by the New York Times to be notable. And I don't care for Jayson Blair's music reviews anyway. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clearly meets WP:MUSIC. Notable means that it has been noted by reliable sources and it has. Whether you personally feel it is important is immaterial. DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And Bluesfest isn't at all an obscure venue (albeit happens once a year so not really a venue), just look at the bands who have played there; Bluesfest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by V1i2n3c4e5 (talk • contribs) 21:28, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sufficient WP:RS from notable and significant Canadian secondary sources is now in place, meets WP:MUSIC per Bearcat et. al. Dl2000 (talk) 04:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn Hey, it appears the race is run. :) Ecoleetage (talk) 19:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 04:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Osman Mehmood

Non-notable college student. Could only find facebook links. Elluminate (talk) 16:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subjects claims of notability (winner of community award) cannot be substantiated with reliable sources that show even that the award is notable, much less the subject. gnfnrf (talk) 16:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Gnfnrf. YOWUZA Talk 2 me! 17:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It's also a blatant vanity page.--CyberGhostface (talk) 23:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:40, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strange Noize Tour

Unsourced article on non-notable promotional album. Ibaranoff24 (talk) 16:33, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional-only album without significant media coverage. Fails WP:MUSIC#Albums. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 20:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete: per WP:MUSIC. Schuym1 (talk) 00:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 08:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 04:39, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Branislav Nikić

A non-fully professional player in Greek Third division Matthew_hk t c 16:33, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment At what notability level do you call Gamma Ethniki when it clearly states that it is a professional league and Nikić has played in it? Does that not allow him to be notable under that? Govvy (talk) 20:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 21:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - do we know for sure that the league is fully professional? The statement isn't sourced in the article, and it's relatively down the league tiers, so it's a valid concern. matt91486 (talk) 23:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, and the Greek original from which that article is taken isn't sourced either. This'll need some looking into - if the Gamma Ethniki is fully professional, then Nikic would meet WP:ATHLETE. Bettia (rawr!) 14:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment General rule is in Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues, personally i think Beta Ethniki meet the requirement but not for a player spent his whole senior career at a third division. Matthew_hk t c 15:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Secondly the article without source support. Matthew_hk t c 15:53, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I had a good try to find stuff for him, but unfortunately he plays a fairly low level and I think he is only semi-pro. So I am going to say delete. Govvy (talk) 01:23, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:01, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This AfD seems to depend on the status of Gamma Ethniki. The nearest thing I could find to a reliable source is this, that says it's professional, but the site seems to be self-published. Maybe someone who reads Greek can clear up this point? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. —Phil Bridger (talk) 19:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there isn't enough evidence to say that he has played at a fully-pro level, so he fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 20:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Superman. Sandstein 13:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Übermensch!

Unless I am mistaken, I cannot locate any evidence that is a notable short story -- no major awards, no film/TV adaptation, no influence on contemporary short fiction. Ecoleetage (talk) 13:01, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find anything. ~~Might even be a put on.~~ Not notable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 10:05, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Superman, since this is the German word for Superman. The short story is not shown to be notable. - Richard Cavell (talk) 04:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note the "!" at the end of the title. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Google has three book sources for this short story [23][24] but they don't seem significant. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Übermensch, the article on Friedrich Nietzsche's concept of the "superman". The German word is more likely to apply there. As noted above, the subject of the current article is not notable. Rklear (talk) 18:25, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested by Rklear: someone looking for Nietzsche's idea isn't likely interested in the comic book hero. Nyttend (talk) 00:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#A3, no content. Reso lute 22:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Branislav Benčić

A unsourced footballer, may be a hoax Matthew_hk t c 16:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No content, and none of the clubs that he's played for have an article, suggesting that he has not played in a fully pro league (thus failing WP:ATHLETE). пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 16:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as empty page.--Boffob (talk) 16:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete CSD:A3. Looking through the history, there's never been any content on this article. Bettia (rawr!) 17:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's an empty page, and I couldn't find any verifiable information on this person to a add sourced content to the page. LinguistAtLarge 17:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per all above, fails nearly any criteria. abf /talk to me/ 19:25, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 21:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as probable hoax. Giant Snowman 21:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:49, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marriage Privatization Model

Non-notable neologism. One gets the feeling that this article is written by Lawrence Torcello who invented the term. The concept of treating marriage purely as a legal contract is probably fully discussed in other articles here in less pretentious language. — RHaworth (Talk

Delete - original research with no reliable source for notability.--Boffob (talk) 16:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SOAP and WP:NPOV. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative keep if all of the sources currently cited (and listed in the Sources section) are discussing the term in question and are reliable sources- I dont have access to verify. (And speculation about the identity of the author of the article is not appropriate WP:OUTING, WP:AGF, etc.) -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Aside from this contribution on the topic, Wikipedia lacks any reference to marriage privatization, and therefore, is incomplete in its coverage of the same-sex marriage debate. I am a new contributor to Wikipedia and have started to correct this gap by beginning with peer reviewed professional literature and expanding as time allows. The clear justification for an article on this topic is that it adds to Wikipedia’s incomplete coverage of an issue that is being heatedly discussed in U.S. politics since California’s rejection of Same-sex Marriage during the November elections. Obviously the concept of treating marriage purely as a legal contract is discussed elsewhere. This article is not about treating marriage purely as a legal contract. ~~Hermesmessage - — Hermesmessage (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:19, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As noted in the article itself, Wikipedia already has articles on: Civil union Domestic partnership Same-Sex Marriage and California Proposition 8 (2008). This indicates the issued is addressed in Wikipedia, contrary to Hermesmessage's contention. I see no reason per WP:N why this specific neologism should have an article. Also, Wikipedia is not a forum for political essays, no matter how relavent, so this article has no place here. Theseeker4 (talk) 20:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm a little confused by the controversy over this entry. First, there's no "pretentious language" here. The language of debates on same-sex marriage, civil unions, et al, among political philosophers and social theorists, may be alienating to people as yet unfamiliar w/its terms, but this short entry is a model of clarity. Just do some reading. Second, it seems obvious to me that while "same-sex marriage" is a hot, much-discussed topic, there's very little out about marriage privatization, which is not handled in other Wikipedia articles but really ought to be (again, just do some reading). So, the use of references is exactly as one would wish: we see where to find the key figures debating the background theory and the published work in which the more singular argument (for MPM) is made. In sum then, this MPM is a valuable contribution to the literature as an alternative to civil unions, domestic partnerships, etc., and for just that reason it ought to be available here (I'm about to reference it in an article I'm preparing for an academic journal); but it is also an idea that's arisen in context, and that context is clearly cited. Perhaps I should add (in response to a talk comment) that I'm familiar w/the references made; they are to major contemporary and traditional ethicists and social philosophers and the ref'ed journals are top-tier, peer-reviewed standards. -- Iron Lion of Zion —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iron Lion of Zion (talk • contribs) 01:44, 18 November 2008 (UTC) - — Iron Lion of Zion (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:19, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as essay--the sources are very general, LoZ's reason for keeping--that he wants to reference it in an article he wants to write elsewhere, is about as improper reason for an article here as imaginable, and amounts to a clear declaration that its essentially his own original research. Things go the other way--if he can get an article on the subject published in a peer reviewed journal, then, a Wikipedia articlec ould refer to it, if someone else where to write it and think it relevant. DGG (talk) 05:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
merge+redirect into Civil Union, as: Marriage Privatization Model advocates legally-supported civil unions; Civil Union has no ethical / philosophical content at present. The redirect will provide access for any readers who remember that term. Ensure that Civil union Domestic partnership have "see also"s pointing to each other, and check whether Same-Sex Marriage should be included in this "web" of "see also"s. --Philcha (talk) 10:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just points of clarification re: comments above. I'm not the author of the entry nor did I comment on it before my only comment above. Rather, I found the entry while doing an internet-wide search on civil unions and privatization, was intrigued by the warning of impending deletion at its top, and then put off by the reasons arguing for its deletion. Just "fyi" - I'm an academic with several books in print and a score of articles (i.e., not Wiki articles, but works in peer-reviewed journals and books); I mention this not to sniff the air from the ivory tower, but to make clear that any confusion about the appropriate order of operations for research and citation are not mine. Rather, what I thought I made explicit above was that, having not heard about the "MPM" before (and having published on domestic partnerships and civil unions), this entry was helpful in alerting me to the existence of that position. Obviously, since finding the entry and becoming curious about the position, I ordered the copy of Public Affairs Quarterly in which the original essay appeared, and obviously, any reference I now make to it will be to that scholarly journal, not to a Wiki. Since the ref to PAQ is in the very first line of the entry, it's pretty clear that the order of operations for which DGG is longing has already been followed. And since I'm closely familiar with the journal PAQ (it is one of the most important forums in my field of ethical theory) and w/the other thinkers cited in the entry, I figured it would be a good act of citizenship to take a moment to write a comment on the entry's behalf. Now, this will be my last such comment -I'll happily leave the fate of the entry to more committed editors from here- I only wanted to mark the way in which this entry did help me find an (I think important) line of published research about which I hadn't yet known. Finally, again just as a point of clarification, in addition to not relying on Wikipedia as a final source, I do not allow my students (I'm a university professor) to use Wiki references as (final) scholarly sources, though I do encourage them to cast their research nets widely, and then to follow them out exclusively to peer-reviwed, academic sources. The reason for this entails the possibility for unsound evidence or assertions that might arise when amateurs write on specialized topics. I find the potential for pluralism and the recreational interest of some contributors to be among the reasons for the wonderful strengths of Wikipedia, but in the case of some of comments this entry has provoked, it is disturbingly obvious how unskilled or rushed readers might do damage to an idea, or might bar others from access to it. Iron Lion of Zion (talk) 19:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge+Redirect/or Keep It is truly interesting to see all of the feedback that this one post has generated! Adapting Philcha’s advice and per my previous contribution to this discussion I have already merged this entry with a larger entry I have prepared on Marriage Privatization. I hope that everyone will find this more general entry less “controversial.” In addition to merging the present article the article I have created chronicles the topic’s development, for over a decade, in more general media outlets. If the article discussed here is marked for deletion then this topic can be redirected to the article I have created. If the article being discussed here is deemed worth keeping then it can be linked as a See Also from the more general article I have created. I hope that one of these solutions will satisfy all involved. Regards ~~Hermesmessage —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hermesmessage (talk • contribs) 23:58, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

not every published article is notable. The paper by Torcello will be notable when it becomes a major subject of discussion and debate. Actually, the bar for individual academic papers is very high --we so far have limited them to a very few famous classics. Usually the author is the best choice for the subject for academic workers whether in science or socials science--and by WP:PROF it usually take not just one paper, but dozens, with dozens of citations each--or more, depending on the subject. If, on the other hand, and articles can be written on the general subject, we can judge it appropriately. Usually we seem to require a published discussion of the subject by multiple people--not just the proposer of the hypothesis. For this particular article as it stans, i continue to think the best course is a straightforward plain delete. DGG (talk) 06:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 04:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wiredrawn

Non notable band that fails WP:MUSIC and WP:V. Also nominating releases below. Nouse4aname (talk) 15:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ghits for 'wiredrawn rock' include Wikipedia, Myspace and The Pirate Bay, in that order. That isn't necessarily a bad thing, except I didn't find anything else of any importance. I just can't find the notability to pass wp:rs, nor any indication that the releases were actually on a label. Lots and lots 'o red links. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 19:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Appears to be a moderately popular local band but nothing beyond that—not even a tour. Fails WP:MUSIC. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 20:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 19:44, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:49, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MtPaint

Software does not appear to have been the subject of significant coverage in reliable publications (WP:GNG). Marasmusine (talk) 15:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficient non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources to satisfy our notability guidelines. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not caring either way. In 2005 when article came to be, I might have cared; in 2008, I have no reason to. The default image editor on Eee PC (you likely have heard of the device), in Damn Small Linux and Puppy Linux (ranks 10 and 12 on DistroWatch) and in several other distros of the top 100 - for users this is notable enough, and for a few dead-tree journalists as well (see Linux Format issues 63 and 84, for example). Whether it is for a random deletionist, does not matter in the slightest outside of his playground. Dmitry Groshev, maintainer of mtPaint wjaguar (talk) 08:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Closed as moot for housekeeping. Redundant to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paolo Gislimberti. I am tempted to say delete here and keep on t' other, but once in a blue moon I can resist temptation. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paolo Gislimberti

Tragic though his death maybe I'm not sure it makes him notable? Paste (talk) 14:47, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I appear to have put this up twice without realising it! Paste (talk) 14:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Autodromo_Nazionale_Monza #Deaths from crashes. MBisanz ^talk 04:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paolo Gislimberti

Tragic though this may be I'm not at all sure his death makes him notable? Paste (talk) 14:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While the sourcing here could be improved - there isn't any now - he was a fire marshal at a widely followed sport who died in the course of his duties. This sounds like something that could be referenced to reliable sources, and Google News comes up with 30. Meets the biographical notability guideline. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I added a couple sources. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Some of this information can be added to the mention of the subject's name in Autodromo_Nazionale_Monza #Deaths from crashes. Although racers who have died in racing accidents were often notable during their lifetimes, bystanders (race officials, spectators, etc.) are generally referred to in articles about accidents, rather than individually. Mandsford (talk) 15:04, 17 November 2008UTC)
Delete or Merge. Clear case of WP:BIO1E. The man is only notable because of the accident, so any useful information should be in the article about the accident (and other than his name and job, I don't see much need for anything else in that article). gnfnrf (talk) 15:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep as it sits now, it needs re-work because it seems to be just one event. However, I doubt seriously that the individual would only be notable for that one event and would rather see it kept and expanded (without prejudice for renomination in the future should it not be expanded).--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What other claims to notability or coverage for reasons other than his death do you suspect might exist? gnfnrf (talk) 16:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'll concede that I don't know what a fire marshal does in racing. Given that this happened in 2000, I imagine that it would be difficult to find articles about Paolo Gislimberti from before his tragic death, but I'd be satisfied if it can be shown that fire marshals are well-known enough that some of them have name recognition or that the job in general is described in the media. However, I compare Mr. Gislimberti to Lyle Kurtenbach, a spectator at the 1987 Indianapolis 500, who was killed when a wheel flew into the stands. Mr. Kurtenbach's death is mentioned in several articles [25] but there is no article about Mr. Kurtenbach himself; I can see where WP:MEMORIAL would apply to this tragic accident, which bears mentioning in other contexts. Mandsford (talk) 21:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ as non-notable except for a single event. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect as done with the tragically similar circumstances of the race marshall Jansen Van Vuuren who originally had own article which was later redirected to the index event: the F1 1977 South African Grand Prix at Kyalami. Plutonium27 (talk) 01:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a better understanding of what a race marshal does now. Someone can correct me on this, but it looks like he's the guy who waves the checkered flag, among other things. Usually, that type of honor and responsibility is given to a person who has been at a raceway for a long time. I would still say that no individual marshall would be that well-known (Indy 500 fans might know the marshall at the IMS, but I don't). However, I can forsee that the article Race marshall could be spun back out of Marshal if someone wanted to do so, and that article could make mention of Gislimberti, Van Vuuren, etc. Mandsford (talk) 17:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect User:Lucifero4

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:56, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sunday night sports wrap

Non-notable radio program. Appears to be a once-a-week show on a college radio station. No references, only external links that have nothing about the show itself. Google search on show name plus the call letters turns up only this article. No independent indication of any notability. Contested PROD, removed by original author. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 14:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect - Individual programs don't need their own page unless they're notable. A Google Search simply gave me no reason to think so. DARTH PANDA^duel 14:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: To where would we merge or redirect? - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 18:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable radio programme. Paste (talk) 14:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at this time it may seem small, but they can get some attention. This should not be on the top of the list to delete. This site does not seem misleading, and it seems somewhat factual —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.251.95.10 (talk) 15:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Merely being factual and not misleading does not justify the existence of an article. The program does not meet notability standards. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 18:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deeleetee sports radio program for a college radio station. When the people on the program graduate, it's over. I understand the enthusiasm of the unsigned commenter--being "listed at the top" just means that when you got here it was the most recent nomination.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If kept, or if a No Consensus decision occurs, this article needs to be renamed per Wikipedia naming standards. 23skidoo (talk) 16:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable radio station. The fact that it "seems somewhat factual" and "can get some attention" are not reasons to keep. The deletion proposition is a question of notability. The truthfulness of the article is not in question, the notability is. The fact that the article could give them "some attention" is more a reason to delete, as they are not yet notable, than a reason to keep. Theseeker4 (talk) 16:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep/Remodel~~ I dont believe that just because the program is not yet a big one, that it is not notable. The radio station needs to start somewhere on the internet why not here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.251.95.10 (talk) 18:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why not here? Because Wikipedia isn't the place, that's why. Try Facebook or Myspace. (By the way, you don't get to vote twice. We traced your second vote back to the same IP address.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 19:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Struck through double vote. Please read WP:OR and WP:PROMOTION. Wikipedia isn't a place for stuff to start gaining popularity. Thanks! DARTH PANDA ^duel 19:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Program on a tiny college radio station at a little college. Not notable in the least. Also, note that the IP leaving comments originates from the same school. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 20:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' The radio equivalent of a public access program notable to residents of a small area on a station which doesn't even get to Boston or Providence. Besides, this could be the title of many shows on sports radio or after late local TV news that air on Sunday nights. Nate • (chatter) 02:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm through wasting my time on this its only wikapedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.62.19.97 (talk) 03:19, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 21:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vojislav Dragovic

A footballer without source to sport he exist or made his professional debut. Matthew_hk t c 14:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article needs loads of cleanup, but sources can be found to prove his existance like this, this, this goalie competition, etc. DARTH PANDA ^duel 14:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is source 1 copied from WP, or WP copied from source 1. Source 2 says he hasn't played, source 3 is non-notable--ClubOranje^Talk 23:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete for now. Now this is an awkward one. There's no doubt he exists, but has he played at a fully professional level? Some of the claims in the article have raised a few question marks. For example, it's claimed he played an instrumental part in FK Sarajevo finishing second in the Bosnian league, but according to the second of Darth Panda's links, he never actually played for them, and the claim he helped to bring Walter Zenga to Red Star Belgrade seems a bit fanciful too. I can't find any evidence of him making any first team appearances for Chievo neither. The bulk of links regarding this player seem to centre on this Free Kick Masters that he's involved with (along with some very notable players), but I don't know if that would be enough that see him through on WP:N grounds. So for now, it's a !delete from me. Bettia (rawr!) 15:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment some source support that he played for Chievo youth team. But youth player is not notable yet. Matthew_hk t c 16:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If this source is true, he "was elected as the best goalkeeper and player of the league while with Sarajevo," giving him inherent notability for winning a fairly large award. "Best goalkeeper and player of the league" is like winning an MVP award, in my eyes. DARTH PANDA ^duel 20:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly would be, there's no arguement there. I just find it highly dubious that a player could win Player of the Year after only playing half a season! Also, the claim that he only conceded 4 goals in 16 games is also rather dubious - the only season FK Sarajevo finished second in the league was 2005-2006. Looking at the full results for that season, it's clear that more than four goals were conceded in their last 16 games. There's so much here that just doesn't add up - as well as failing WP:ATHLETE in my eyes, this article also fails WP:V. Bettia (rawr!) 09:38, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Bettia. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 16:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bettia. Govvy (talk) 20:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bettia. Giant Snowman 21:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't believe he has met notability criteria yet. Main sources provided are unsupported except by WP which raises the question of chickens and eggs. Independant sources don't seem to support any claim to have actually played notably.--ClubOranje^Talk 23:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 21:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch Sweets

Notability of this company not established. No third party references. Borders on WP:SPAM. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 13:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence in the form of third-party reference sources indicating that this is a notable business. --DAJF (talk) 14:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm Dutch myself and have come across this web site a couple of times to check prices etc... but it fails WP:WEB and notability guildlines. --Pmedema (talk) 16:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I concur. The company does not appear to meet WP:WEB and notability. Geoff (talk) 17:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Leckwith Development. So Why 09:25, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Capital Retail Park

What makes this retail park any more notable than the hundreds of others in the UK? More than enough is mentioned in the New Cardiff City stadium article. As it is, the article seems little more than an advert. Nouse4aname (talk) 13:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Capital Retail Park

I feelthat this page should stay because it provides relevant information about the retail park which is being built. This retail park does not really have much to do wit the CCFC/Blues stadium and is part of a development to improve Leckwith. The new staium page should not mention in detail and should have a link to the retail park page instead. I don't feel that this is an advertisement as the status column shows the development as it progresses. Your point about other retail parks in the UK is valid, however I live in Cardiff and am writing about a retail park that I use and lso live near. It is up to people who live near the retail parks (and also other features in the town/city) to make/edit the articles. I feel tat it should stay but would follow any suggestions you might have to improve the page.

Thanks, Lwebdan (talk) 20:19, 18 November 2008 (UTC)</[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete May or may not be notable eventually, but has not opened yet. Most likely it won't be: only 16 stores, about 300,000 square feet, which is below our usual standard for shopping centers. DGG (talk) 02:30, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteNon notable. And perhaps WP:OR. "relevent information" is not a reason to keep. This is an encyclopedia, not a place for original information. If other publications create meaningful articles about this place we can then create an article.Obina (talk) 12:09, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Leckwith Development. The target page badly needs some content and there is material here that would enhance it. TerriersFan (talk) 17:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Leckwith Development. TerriersFan, that's an elegant suggestion. --Lockley (talk) 04:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. As I stated above, more than enough information is included in the New Cardiff City stadium article. There is no need even for the Leckwith Development page either, which serves as little more than a bunch of links. Nouse4aname (talk) 09:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. ... and it needs moving out of New Cardiff City stadium! That article should deal just with the stadium whilst Leckwith Development should take an overview and deal in more detail with those parts of the development that are not individually notable; that's what will move it from being a link farm!. It is not a case of deleting this page more where the content goes. TerriersFan (talk) 11:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm not convinced that the Leckwith Development is notable aside from the stadium - it can't just borrow notability from the new football ground. I don't see how a minor athletics ground, a retail park and a housing estate can be either individually or collectively notable. If they weren't part of the football ground construction, would we even consider an article for them? Nouse4aname (talk) 12:11, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - A lot of people don't consider the athletics stadium 'minor' and the demolition of its predecessor was controversial.[26] There are more than sufficient sources to stand up a page on what is a major development, in my view. TerriersFan (talk) 03:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect and I too agree that info about a Retail Park does not belong in a Article about a Stadium. However, a 'Parent' Article of the group that is the force behind all this redevelopment does seem notable when the entire scope of developments is considered. Once the junk is trimmed out, this (the current Capital Retail Park Article) would make an excellent 'section' in that Article. So to would a 'section' about the Stadium. The current Leckwith Development is in serious need of a cleanup and Cite'ing if it is to survive any AfD itself though. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 06:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 21:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Mackey (mathematician)

I came across this page by chance (looking for George Mackey). But I don't see why this mathematician has a WP article. As far as I can tell, he does not meet WP:N or WP:PROF. If his contributions to Ramsey theory are important, they should be mentioned on that page. This is of course not a personal criticism of John Mackey, simply an application of the inclusion criteria. Simplifix (talk) 13:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable sources to establish that he passes WP:PROF or WP:N. Besides, anyone who is listed on the math genealogy project has famous academic "ancestors".--Boffob (talk) 15:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep pending addition of reliable sources. Yeah, it's a stub... so what?--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. — DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 20:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability not established. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete To address Paul, it doesn't bother me that this is a stub (I defend stubs daily at AFD). It is just that he isn't a department head and his contributions to mathematics appear to be minor since they aren't published anywhere or talked about in any scholarly journals, so he doesn't appear to meet any criteria of wp:PROFESSOR or general notability requirements. And I really, really looked, solely because I was hoping to find some great sources and make ChildofMidnight look bad. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 00:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only two papers in MathSciNet: "A cube tiling of dimension eight with no facesharing" and "A lower bound for groupies in graphs". A subject area filtered Google scholar search also finds only these two papers and a few patents that might be by other people with similar names. Few citations in each case. I'm not seeing any evidence that he passes WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a John Mackey at Hardvard Math Dept. who I ran into at Scholar as well. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 00:36, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not pass WP:PROF, unless he is the next Einstein working quietly and not receiving proper recognition from CMU or anyone else, in which case notability will be established later. According to CMU: “Renewable positions that are primarily for teaching are classified as lecturer and senior lecturer.”--Eric Yurken (talk) 03:38, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per David Eppstein. Only two published papers, neither highly cited, nothing else in the record indicates passing WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 13:31, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the bounds for R(5,5) are both obsolete by now; this is one brief step in one case of Ramsey theory. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 03:56, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pastorius Park

Unremarkable Place. Dengero (talk) 13:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As per common outcomes for Geography and WP:Notability (geography) It is a verified location. I've added the Google Maps link[27] to the article. --Pmedema (talk) 16:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think WP:Notability (geography) or common outcomes for Geography is quite so clear, and neither mention parks at all. The guidelines says Named geographic features are usually considered notable. This includes mountains, lakes, streams, islands etc. but I don't think a 16 acre park is a geographical feature per se. I am neutral on the inclusion of this article, but I think a more detailed rationale might be needed to satisfy an otherwise valid nomination. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 20:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Is the in depth subject of secondary sources, including an entire chapter of the 1916 edition of the architecturally important and influential Architectural Record by the American Institute of Architects [28], passing the core criteria of WP:NOTABILITY. --Oakshade (talk) 22:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge / redirect to Chestnut Hill, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Verifiable and sufficiently notable to exist in wikipedia somewhere, but even after a close reading of the 1916 Architecture Record article, I'm not convinced it deserves its own page. --Lockley (talk) 17:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:56, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cleverbot

Notability Issues. It's a chatterbot. And a momma bot. There's heaps out there and this one doesn't seem to be extra special. Dengero (talk) 13:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Hey, look, there's a 32-page book on Cleverbot! But 3,650 results from a Google search just makes me think no, expecially because there is no third-party coverage. It's simply WP:NN. DARTH PANDA ^duel 14:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no real point for this page to exist. 76.188.2.195 (talk) 01:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 19:39, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to ShaniDham. MBisanz ^talk 03:56, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shanidham,raipur

Unremarkable Place, no results turned up in a quick google search. Dengero (talk) 13:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Maybe the temple is ShaniDham? DARTH PANDA ^duel 14:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - ShaniDham is in Delhi, while this article quotes Ahmedabad. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 16:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect- there are number sources exist in Google regarding this temple. At least by me, the editor mistakenly added Ahmedabad while it is located at Delhi (shanidham temple). So it's better to redirect to ShaniDham--NAHID 18:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to existing article on subject. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Footprints in the sand (hymn)

Does not meet the requirements of notability for songs. Also represents a conflict of interest as the article was written by the song's composer. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:47, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MUSIC, also a COI. This might also be speediable under A9 as the article does also refer to a NN recording for which there is no article on the artist. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 15:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I declined the speedy because there are claims of importance in the article. Let the AfD run its course.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:47, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:47, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If verifiable, merge to Footprints (poem) on which the hymn was based. If unverifiable, delete. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted as an attack page.- Mgm|^(talk) 13:03, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ramadonus kaleidos

An article which seems to claim that a new species has been created from a mutated human in North America! Google throws up no significant hits whatsoever on this subject (highly suspicious given the nature of this claim), and so I'm more than inclined to think that this is a hoax. Bettia (rawr!) 11:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Gotta be a hoax. I would assume that if there was a human mutant, it may make the news before it hits Wikipedia. ^Law_shoot! 12:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax, most likely a subtle attack on a person with a name similar to the article title -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong, Speedy Delete - Oh, gosh, that is hilarious. I cannot believe this wasn't speedied for bullshit, but may also qualify for WP:G3. DARTH PANDA ^duel 12:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 21:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Movie: the movie

Non-notable film, zero references, nothing of note from a google search. Reads like a school project made up by some teenagers some day. Request deletion. role^player 11:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Violates WP:NFF (nothing verifiable by reliable third-party sources).- Mgm|^(talk) 12:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Hoax, anybody? Not a single source could be found, and the title just tips me off as being thorougly made up. If someone finds sources, I obviously retract this (insulting) claim, but until then... DARTH PANDA^duel 12:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, Darth Panda, try checking the discussion page for this article— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lord Pi (talk • contribs) 14:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on the article, which says that this is a film, currently in production, that has not been released. Generally, even productions that have allied with a major film distributor are not given their own articles until a definitive release date has been announced. If this comes out in the theaters or on DVD, Blu-Ray, etc., then an article can be made. Mandsford (talk) 15:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This movie is not going to be released in a theatere, rather, it is simply a movie that will be able to be viewed strictly on the internet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lord Pi (talk • contribs) 15:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see the criteria listed at WP:NOTFILM. This may help to explain why this article has been listed for deletion in the first place. -- role^player 15:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If this is online content only, then it should be speedily deleted under criteria A7. Marasmusine (talk) 15:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems to be a low budget film made by amatuers. Never asserts notability, fails WP:NFF and WP:NOTFILM. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 16:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Like the majority have said, it's not a notable movie by any means. If anything, the article is a joke. Rtyq2 (talk) 16:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Absolutely not notable. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 16:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Delete no notabillity at all, as far as I can see. abf /talk to me/ 19:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above reasons. -Marcusmax(speak) 22:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You never know. As has been said on this article's discussion page, this article has been entered in various contests. Certain contests could win money, which could be used to pay for an operation. Also, this movie could serve as insparation for anybody who wants to become an actor/director/scriptwriter. Also, if articles on online content should be deleted, then what about the wikipedia article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lord Pi (talk • contribs) 23:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Then as soon as it wins one of those contests, and there are reliable verifiable sources for it then by all means come back and post it again. Wikipedia as a website has all three. Please read the notability guidelines, which you have been referred to, both here and on the article's discussion page. -- role^player 00:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a movie created by a civilian on the internet and is purely an ammiture film. However all the information regarding Jeff Burgess is correct as is the entire article. The name 'Movie: The Movie' is indeed correct also. You can search for it on youtube.com.— Preceding unsigned comment added by OOAstarOo (talk • contribs) 07:31, 18 November 2008
- The above comment is that user's only contribution to Wikipedia at the time of adding it. -- role^player 07:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 09:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can find no assertion of notability compared to the guidelines for film. --SSBohio 03:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andy lim

Declined speedy, is CEO and chairman of several companies, which could mean he's notable, or at least a worthy merge target. 'Procedural nomination Mgm|^(talk) 11:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Odd, he's mentioned in a news article and a Google Book search turned up two sources that definitively mention him. He doesn't pass WP:BIO or WP:ORG though, so I still have to vote delete. DARTH PANDA ^duel 12:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just falls over into the non-notable side of the bit bucket. Pegasus «C¦T» 15:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete falls short of notability. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 16:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to keep based on the sources that ChildofMidnight dug up, and reading them indicates that other sources are very likely to be found. Now he just needs to put a couple in the article. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 01:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep I found him discussed in a lot of places. Seems to be a major player in finance. 1[29], 2[30], 3[31] Those were just the first few sources discussin him and his investment activities. But he seems to be quite prominent. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Quite prominent?? Ok, one of those is a good source, the other mentions him in passing (talking about the company and mentioning him), the other isn't really independent. (not junk, just not independent). You confident that passes WP:GNG or is there some other criteria I am unaware of? Even *if* he passed, 'strong'? DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 00:25, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, the article needs to be expanded and improved. But I think his prominence makes a strong keep reasonable. He's an international player in high finance doing big time investment deals. He also appears to be prominent in SIngapore having held government positions and serving on various boards and such. Do you want me to hunt for even better references? I thought those were adequate to establish his notability per the usual criteria. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not appear to this editor to possess a great deal of notability. Enterquick2008 (talk) 08:21, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Suvarnabhumi Airport Link. content already merged, good target. StarM 15:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

High Speed Airport Rail Link, Bangkok, Thailand

Duplicates Suvarnabhumi Airport, with an unfinished, unwikified piece of text that can be scrapped without loss. Classical geographer (talk) 11:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Unnotable outside of the airport itself. Redirection would be pointless; I can't see anybody possibly searching for this term. DARTH PANDA ^duel 12:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article is about a railway line, not the Suvarnabhumi Airport. The nominator may have meant Suvarnabhumi Airport Link. Railway companies are notable, and this is a significant construction project which will cost a lot of money to build. Consider Heathrow Express in the English-speaking world as a comparison. -- Eastmain (talk) 15:03, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Boldly merged to Suvarnabhumi Airport Link -- Eastmain (talk) 15:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 21:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Cox

Delete. Unreferenced article, likely hoax, two out of three references do not exist. WWGB (talk) 11:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 11:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. "Scenes from a Separation" is by Andrew Bovell & Hannie Rayson not this guy.--Sting Buzz Me... 12:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete as hoax. Michellecrisp (talk) 03:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obvious hoax. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - hoax. Neither Google Books nor COPAC has heard of his book. The only relevant things turned up by Google are this article and mirrors like Nationmaster and Answers.com. JohnCD (talk) 14:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedied. لenna vecia 19:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan McKnight

No reliable sources, and doesn't pass the criteria at WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 10:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No assertion of notability. Probably could be tagged for little context. ^Law_shoot! 12:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:03, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Clear A7 speedy. notability not asserted... just because your a porn star does not make you notable. Article tagged as such. --Pmedema (talk) 16:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Ugh... active SSP case, recreations, etc. seicer | talk | contribs 14:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hosseini nassab

This person's page is created again and again and again by this particular user, so let's figure out once and for all if they are notable.

I believe this person is not notable. I've tried searching for them and have found little information, being an Ayatollah in itself is not criteria for notability, and I see that the article mentions he has a certificate rather than a phd. So, I see some red flags, but if someone with more expertise in the subject of Muslim teachers could comment it would be very helpful. FlyingToaster 10:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: This person's name is actually Ayatollah Seyed Reza Hosseini Nassab. It has been created by Rezanasab with many different spellings due to speedy deletions. - FlyingToaster 10:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet

I also note that this user who created this is likely a sockpuppet of User_talk:Rezanasab. - FlyingToaster 10:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - if the user is repeatedly creating this article, then they are repeatedly ignoring the boldface message on every "create new article" page; "Articles that are created without references ... are likely to be deleted very quickly." Article should be removed, with no prejudice against recreation if some WP:RS can be provided.Marasmusine (talk) 11:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With the exception of the Basmala, this is identical to Ayatollah Hoseini-Nasab, which was deleted today by VirtualSteve with the rationale "G4: Recreation of a page which was deleted per a deletion discussion" Nyttend (talk) 12:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:49, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mercia Movement

Due to related discussion and to centralise we need to also review:

Declined speedy. Debate on talk page was becoming a mini-AFD anyhow. No comment either way but this needs a debate not unilateral admin action. Pedro : Chat 10:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that the debate taking place is about three very similar articles - Mercia Movement, Sovereign Mercia and Wessex Society. Can we have the debate for all three in the same place? ðarkun coll 10:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doing.... Pedro : Chat 11:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done Pedro : Chat 11:04, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. These articles give useful and interesting information about local movements, and are linked to from the main articles on Mercia and Wessex. ðarkun coll 11:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. They are very stub-like at the moment, and it would be difficult to avoid being of the opinion that they all should be deleted because there is so little to go on as regards content. I suggest that effort is made to bulk them up and expand them with whatever reliable sources and citations can be discovered over the next few days (not necessarily just on the web, which is probably a restricted source) and consequently I for one will delay my opinion until near the end of the debate. DDStretch (talk) 11:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. Working on DDStretch's suggestion above, I've so far been able to expand one of the articles at least (Sovereign Mercia). What happens if we can find info on one or two of the groups, but not the other(s)? I'm assuming that the retention or deletion of one or two of these articles does not necessecarily entail the retention or deletion of all three, even though, for convenience, we are discussing them in the same place. ðarkun coll 14:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there's no reason why editors cannot discuss deletion or merger of one article whilst recommending another should be kept. The discussion is centralised, but that does not mean that the outcome of the discussion will be the same for each article. Pedro : Chat 14:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A minor separatist movement apparently backed by a notorious cartel of Mercian coconut farmers.

One source given in Sovereign Mercia is to Prediction magazine, apparently about the founding of the movement in 1985. The other, to the Birmingham Mail, apparently documents a 2007 name change. This level of activity does not suggest a separatist movement with a great deal of notability or support. The other sources are internal.

If any are kept, surely Mercia Movement and Sovereign Mercia could merge. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. How many sources are required? There is no reason to assume that these are all there are. And I don't really understand your comment about coconut farmers. As for a merger, these two parties seem to have opposed policies. Should we merge the articles on the Labour and Conservative parties, since both happen to be British? ðarkun coll 16:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, coconut farmers. In Mercia. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 20:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. These articles all fail WP:VER and WP:N. In the case of Sovereign Mercia there are only 8 ghits, and I really don't think that a link to a local hockey website counts as an adequate reference! Mercia Movement is no better - few ghits and no references. Wessex Society might make the grade - most ghits are about something else but it does seem to have some level of activity so there might be acceptable references somewhere - but where are they? andy (talk) 15:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. It is misleading to use Google as our only source, and the low number of ghits might simply be a result of the recent name change. I shall, in any case, continue looking for more citations. It would be a shame, I think, to lose these intrinsically interesting articles. [Update] Okay, I've just added another citation. ðarkun coll 16:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have misunderstood the policies on verifiability and notability. Firstly, Google is not a source. It's a tool for finding sources and a low number of hits means that reliable sources are likely to be hard to come by. Basically, nobody is talking about these societies on the web, which may well mean nobody is talking anywhere else either.

So sources will have to be found the old fashioned way. And what do we have for Sovereign Mercia? A 23 year old article in a mystical magazine, an utterly irrelevant link to a sports website which doesn't seem to mention the subject, and two references to local news articles which are unverifiable. The online archive of the Birmingham Mail has articles from September 12 2007 but none that mention Sovereign Mercia; and Central News doesn't seem to have an archive reaching back to 1994.

Mercia Movement is completely unsourced. Wessex Society now has one reference to a single sentence in the Sunday Times. Please read WP:N: "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The Sunday Times is reliable and independent but a single sentence scarcely counts as signficant, and as far as the other articles go there is zero coverage as far as I can see. andy (talk) 18:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The nature of the sources available depends entirely on the subject matter. I don't think any of these are unreasonable. ðarkun coll 18:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wessex Society has received significant coverage in the Western Daily Press, though ~~not all~~ none of it is archived on that newspaper's website Nick xylas (talk) 19:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merely stating that there's significant coverage isn't enough - you have to reference it in the article so that anyone who wants to can check it. See WP:PROVEIT andy (talk) 10:28, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this, and it is the reason why I thought an AfD was the better option to use for these articles to settle the matter more clearly and decisively. In effect the bluff is being called: if there are good reasons to keep them, then before this AfD is closed, one would expect to see the references and content being added to each article; if not, then I see no reason to keep any of them. You are being given time to add the content and references, and I suggest good use is made of this time. DDStretch (talk) 10:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see what I can find in my clippings collection, and encourage others to do likewise. Nick xylas (talk) 13:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've just checked the recently added references for Wessex Society. Not very good at all! One is a link to a gif of a small green map with some bits coloured red; another is a link to a newspaper article that requires credit card details before you can access it (I've removed the url); and another is a book where the society is given a couple of parenthetic mentions in single sentences - definitely not significant coverage. andy (talk) 23:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The map wasn't recently added, it's been there a while. I have now added some more citations from my newspaper clippings file. Sadly I don't have URLs for them, but the Internet isn't the be all and end all of sources, and not everything is online.Nick xylas (talk) 02:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable, looks like a minor eccentricity not a serious issue --Snowded TALK 21:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks notability. GoodDay (talk) 14:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --As an Englishman, living in Mercia, I have never heard of eitehr of the Mercian movements, and thus assume that they are a small group of cranks. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not very nice now is it? There's no need to be nasty. Plus WP:IVENOTHEARDOFIT isn't an argument. Sticky Parkin 03:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Ossoble Adde

Same creator as Abukar Omarsson below with same problem, unsourced with great claims to notability but trying to sources leads to it appearing to be a hoax parading as a valid article. –– Lid^(Talk) 10:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Some other guy (or him) under the same name exists, per a Google Book search. Oddly enough though, very few Wikipages link to it which makes me question its verifiability. DARTH PANDA ^duel 12:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No coverage found in reliable sources means there's nothing in this article that can be verified. Raven1977 (talk) 23:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted as copyright violation. Most of the text was a verbatim copy of this page at the Tagbilaran Diocese. Subject may be notable and a possible candidate for a future article, about which I have no opinion at this time. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 20:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Our Lady of the Barangays (Virgen sang Barangay)

Notability is not asserted. No reliable sources were given. Alexius08 (talk) 10:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —ApprenticeFan (talk) 11:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per original research. ApprenticeFan (talk) 11:25, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I may not be a Marian devotee, but I do know which Mother Mary image is notable and definitely not this one. Starczamora (talk) 21:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I doubt that this "Our Lady of Barangays" is even known among Marian devotees in the Philippines. Other than the members of "Birhen Sang Barangay", that is :P --- Tito Pao (talk) 00:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abukar Omarsson

Unsourced article about a claimed former Swedish MP, however while trying to find anything on the subject can only find linkedin and facebook pages implying a hoax or an extreme stretch of the truth of the notability of the individual –– Lid^(Talk) 10:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as completely unverifiable. Also, I noted that the Swedish Wikipedia doesn't seem to know him either. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:03, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:33, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. per WP:SNOW J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 04:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Celtictalk

Non notable, recently created forum. Article cites no references, with the single external link, being to the official site. Created by an editor with an apparent WP:COI, the forum currently fails all 3 criterion on WP:WEB. (Note - article immediately recreated following a speedy deletion by RHaworth [32]) --Flewis^(talk) 09:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Run of the mill forum. Nothing that indicates notability. _ Mgm|^(talk) 11:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:47, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. --DAJF (talk) 13:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Slightly promo too. Dengero (talk) 13:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DAJF. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 16:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article itself shows its not notable. abf /talk to me/ 19:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Govvy (talk) 20:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - cpmpletely non-notable. Giant Snowman 21:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable, also seems to be a self promo--ClubOranje^Talk 23:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball Delete - as nom, due to a solid consensus --Flewis^(talk) 06:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Colin Meon

The result was Delete. Magioladitis (talk) 10:48, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable music producer, that fails WP:BIO together with WP:NM. Possible hoax/vandalism page, none of the external sources mention the subject. Flewis^(talk) 08:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've been talking with Flewis about this nomination. The article CLSM previously contained almost identical content to the one now nominated, and Flewis has converted it into a disambiguation page. - Richard Cavell (talk) 10:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - see here [33] --Flewis^(talk) 10:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clean up, and move back to CLSM where it really belongs. I hadn't heard of Colin Meon, but I'm listening to CLSM on BBC Radio 1 right now, which alone should be enough to satisfy the notability criteria of WP:BAND. --DAJF (talk) 11:33, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to CLSM which I have now restored. --DAJF (talk)
Delete - Sorry to keep changing my tune, but after working on the CLSM article, the supposed connection between Colin Meon and the band is not verified, which is why I have removed mention of that name from the CLSM article. Until any involvement or connection has been verified, a redirect would not be appropriate, and the Colin Meon article should be deleted as a duplicate creation of the CLSM article. --DAJF (talk) 00:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~'Redirect as CLSM has been restored. Needs to be fixed up and referenced as well.~~ ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability not established. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 19:33, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Is there really such a need for "more thorough discussion" in this case? The article was created as a result of a botched copy & paste move by an inexperienced editor. It is therefore a (now out-of-date) duplicate of the CLSM article. While making it a redirect to CLSM initially seemed to be the best option, as explained above, the connection with this band cannot be verified at present, and so deletion appears to be the only option. If Colin Meon can be verified as the name of a person involved in this group, surely it will be simple enough to create a redirect from that name in the future? --DAJF (talk) 10:11, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per WP:A7 by Kingturtle. Non-admin closure. DARTH PANDA ^duel 14:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SQL View

No material claims of notability, and media search doesn't provide more than a passing mention of the company or its products. Bongo matic 08:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. From where I'm standing this is a promotional piece. If all the fluff was to be removed, we'd have something smaller than a stub. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Self promotion article. No reliable third party sources of notability. Zero Kitsune (talk) 13:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as spam, no news coverage, nothing other than advertising found. Article reads like a press release. Support addition of the article Knowledge Repository Information System (KRIS) by the same author for the same reason, will prod it now. Theseeker4 (talk) 15:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WWIN point 3.6 and 2.3.(4) abf /talk to me/ 19:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 21:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Bruce (disambiguation)

Disambiguation page that only points to one article. The second has been a redlink since the disambig page was created over 2 years ago, and it doesn't look like anyone plans to create it any time soon...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If someone was to create the page about the sociologist, we could use a hatnote. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - and remove the hatnote from Steve Bruce's article. This disambiguation page serves no purpose. You could argue that it's speediable because if the other link stays red, then this page has no meaningful content. - Richard Cavell (talk) 08:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- But let the AFD run the full 5 days, in case someone sees the AFD and decides to create the article. Umbralcorax (talk) 15:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As per Umbralcorax above. I hope someone does create one, as the Steve Bruce sociologist clearly needs one. Very eminent professor and author... here's his bio and bibliography. Tris2000 (talk) 16:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, with no prejudice against recreation if an article about the sociologist is created. Nsk92 (talk) 13:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have the same position as Nsk92 regarding this.--Eric Yurken (talk) 22:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:47, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Nguyen

College tennis player: Non-notable by WP standards. Almost all the articles cited as external links are all student newspapers, or are not independent of the subject. Ohconfucius (talk) 07:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I thought I had an independent source, but it turned out to be a wire article from Stanford. All I'm left with is two statistics sites. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:47, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maritime Communications Reference Guide

Maritime broadcast communications net does a better job, and the title is too unlikely for a redirect. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Duplicate of existing information. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect as a courtesy. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 21:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blood Covenant (band)

I don't like doing this, but I cannot let this one go any longer. (Please don't think I'm biting anyone, I'm not trying to) This band has been borderline for a while now, but IMO, google searches turn up nothing notable. You will see many strange things involving blood and ritualistic things involved in various religions in this search. It fails WP:RS and WP:N. They are not signed to a notable label nor have they made any tours to gain any notoriety. They fail WP:MUSIC too. The article says they are related to Ayas but that is only because the lead vocalist did a guest session on a song or two from Blood Covenant. Delete Undead Warrior (talk) 07:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Undead Warrior (talk) 07:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After poking around the references, I must agree with the reasoning of the nominator. =- Mgm|^(talk) 08:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I basically agree with the nom (self-released albums, no tours, little coverage etc.). Their one claim to notability is that they are the only "unblack" metal band in Armenia; whilst this needs sourcing, given that Metal Archives lists a grand total of 11 Armenian metal bands, I'm inclined to believe them. I am however not sure that this is enough to pass WP:MUSIC. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 09:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No chart performances, links from google = not worthy of wiki! (Neostinker (talk) 14:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Keep 1. They are gonna sign to a "notable" label soon. I don't know any details. So the "label debate" can't be any reason for a deletion. 2. They WILL tour to gain notoriety in 2009/2010 in Russia and possibly Denmark. So this one can't be a reason, too. 3. They are a VERY notable band here, but I just didn't search for any sources. Again, no reason. 4. Let OTHERS to find sources! So, close this discussion and don't disturb me with your "unsourced" nominations anymore!
Comment You do realise you haven't rebutted anything there, right? 1. They are going to sign to a notable label. Well, first you need a source for that, and second they need to release two albums on it. 2. They will tour in 2009/2010. Well, they'd need significant coverage of said tours in reliable sources; as we're talking up to two years in the future I suggest you read WP:CRYSTAL. 3. They are very notable but you didn't look for sources. Well, go look for sources then. You can't establish notability by just using CAPSLOCK. 4. Let others do the work for you. Er, no, burden of proof, as always, is on the claimant. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 15:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources to establish notability per WP:MUSIC. No third party sources at all. Rehevkor ✉ 16:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 19:25, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 19:31, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--unfortunately, the article's unsigned advocate/author is not helping his cause, and his arguments have been pretty well refuted. I also don't see notability (yet). "Let others find sources"? Well, they tried and failed. No record label, no notable tours, no coverage --> no Wikipedia article. Drmies (talk) 15:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note--we've gone over this before, I noticed, but with different contributors to the discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Blood_Covenant. Drmies (talk) 15:44, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I knew something looked strange. I nominated that a while ago and it was deleted. So, now after this is closed, Salt the article heavily. Undead Warrior (talk) 04:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep.. lifebaka++ 16:32, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Affair of the Necklace (disambiguation)

Unnecessary dab page. Both secondary items are WP:DAB#Partial_title_matches. Also, the historical event is already linked in the main film article. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unlikely search term for part of the pages listed. The same could be done using hatnotes. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this disambiguation page is useful. There are three items that need to be disambiguated. - Richard Cavell (talk) 08:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Legitimate three-article dab page, properly titled. Tevildo (talk) 13:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fall of Efrafa

Non notable band. Fails WP:MUSIC, WP:RS, and WP:N. No notable label. No big tours. The article is full of OR. The genre's are even questionable. Delete Undead Warrior (talk) 07:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Undead Warrior (talk) 07:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Labels aren't notable, fails WP:MUSIC guidelines. The listed interviews aren't independent sources (one of them specifically state that they encourage bands to request reviews). - Mgm|^(talk) 08:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pains me to say it, as the band sounds really interesting, but no, not notable; I'd tidied the article up but couldn't find any reliable sources for it. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 09:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think that the reasons for deleting my entry are substantial enough. The entry is well written, points to references of a band with a large underground fanbase, with a notable and interesting concept. I do not think that just because this band is not known to you as individuals that this warrants deletion. The whole entire point of wikipedia is to learn, and the simple fact is that if this page gets deleted,someone else will put it back up. This band have completed noteworthy tours, two successful albums and have a very interesting message to forward. please do not delete this page simply because you have the power to do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grilledvegetables (talk • contribs) 14:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think anyone above has suggested the article is deleted simply because they have not heard of the band; the issue revolves around notability as established through reliable sources. These sources have not (yet) been provided, possibly because they do not exist. Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, is obviously a repository of information, but its purpose does not include free advertising for any old band that fancies having a page on here. Finally, your suggestion that someone would just put the page back up is on shakey ground; replaced content would be speedily deleted and eventually the page would be salted to prevent its re-creation until the band does something of note. With that, I am going to order some Fall of Efrafa CDs :) Blackmetalbaz (talk) 14:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment i am not in any way associated with the band, and i cannot see how you could see wikipedia as free advertising for a band! its an online encyclopedia. Im angry because i wrote a lot of this article because i felt that they deserved a decent online description. A lot was borrowed from the bands website and from an interview i did with them. I noticed some of the reasons why this was not worthy of an entry "No notable labels or tours" come on - that really is BS. DIY bands do not involve themselves with major labels or major tours. They have completed two euro tours and touring america next year. If you're truly a fan of independent music, you would KNOW how much work goes into touring, and releasing records. To say none of that is notable is a huge disrespect to bands, and DIY music. I have noticed so many bands on this site that have no notable reason for having a page, yet do have a page. I feel that this deletion has more to do with deletionists on a power trip, who don't like or know a band and therefor delete pages that don't fall into their field of what is deemed worthy. This undeadwarrior guy, using his wiki project on black metal as a reason for deleting fall efrafa- congratulations, you know a lot about black metal, but do you know anything about fall of efrafa, who take influence from ambient folk black metal? does this mean youll delete wolves in the throne room, velnias and agalloch's pages next? Its a shame, because i wished to contribute other bands and items to wiki, and now feel that there really isn't any point.
Comment I think it's a real shame you feel that way, as we always need new editors for Wikipedia. However, there's a few things you need to bear in mind; firstly, please read WP:MUSIC. If a band doesn't pass those (pretty lenient) conditions, then they shouldn't have an article on Wikipedia. If a band refuses to do major interviews, sign to a notable label, do touring that is covered significantly by reliable sources, they are non-notable by choice and have no place here. Regarding your specific reference to the nominator, tread carefully and read WP:CIVIL. Finally, it seems unlikely that the bands you mention will get deleted given that they pass WP:MUSIC; Fall of Efrafa, at present and without further sourcing, do not. It's nothing to do with not liking them... as I stated above, they sound really interesting and I have just ordered both of their albums. They are simply not notable by Wikipedia standards. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 13:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 19:25, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--I agree with Warrior and Baz. (And it is a WHOLE lot of words in that article.) When notability is not only achieved but also established (Grilledvegetables, that's the point of an encyclopedia--the dispersal of accepted and verifiable knowledge), then this article may return. Baz, I didn't see any tunes on the band's Myspace--burn me a copy when you get those CDs in, will you? ;) Drmies (talk) 15:38, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Moorhouse

Fictional character from a you-tube video. I couldn't fit this into a Speedy category, so am bringing it here. A google search for "Mike Moorhouse" and "Dan's Story" gives only this article. Other spellings of Moorhouse give nothing. I cannot therefore see how this meets the notability requirements. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:47, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable web related fictional character. see also recently posted Dan's Story. --skew-t (talk) 06:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom/ = Mgm|^(talk) 08:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 21:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Power Rangers cast members

An article is not needed to list cast members of Power Rangers. A category would in fact serve better.

Also nominating:

List of Power Rangers voice actors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 06:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment you do know that we delete on sight, performers by performance categories, or speedily listify them, right? So your suggested category would be deleted by numerous precedent. 76.66.201.13 (talk) 06:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not suggesting any categories. I'm just saying that a category would be better. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 07:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lists-vs.-categories is a false dichotomy, but I see no demonstration of notability. Cosmic Latte (talk) 07:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a valid spinoff from the Power Rangers article which would grow too large if kept there. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: as above. (Neostinker (talk) 14:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Power Rangers has a large and ever-growing cast. This seems like a sensible spin-out. It's too big to keep in the main Power Rangers article, but it's good, real-world information on the series. Zagalejo^^^ 23:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If the show just had the one season and ten cast members, no need for this. But since it's had uncountable seasons and shows and a rotating cast of new actors every year, this list is definitely justified. Nate • (chatter) 02:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: If you saw the AfD nomination edit summary on Alpha 6 (which I also nominated for deletion) in its history, or your watchlist and if you clicked the linked entry that led you here, the correct entry is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of minor Power Rangers characters. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 00:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:45, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Erwin

fails WP:BIO badly. no third party coverage in Australia as indicated by Google news search. Michellecrisp (talk) 05:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability not established. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:33, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn. Fails WP:BIO per nom.--Sting Buzz Me... 12:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm a fan of Mark's and have personally heard or witnessed him working on more than 6 radio shows for SEN, NIRS, Radio2 and other international stations. He also worked as an Internet TV presenter for the AFL for a number of years, including the 2004,5&6 AFL Grand Finals. Why don't you just contact SEN in Melbourne and AFL Films at the minimum to find out that it is not only true, but also only a short summary of his work, from Australia to Taiwan. It would be a shame to delete factual articles such as Mark's and many others. Cheers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.117.181.221 (talk) 16:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC) — 59.117.181.221 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

It's quite simple, Mark like any person with an article on Wikipedia must satisfy WP:BIO with reliable sources proving this. I haven't been able to find anything. secondly simply being a radio presenter is not necessarily notable. Michellecrisp (talk) 22:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted by me. The article is clearly something made up one day, and once the admittedly 'fictional' component is removed, there is no meaningful, substantial content. - Richard Cavell (talk) 07:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Turkster

Wikipedia is not for fictional things you made up one day, but due to lack of an appropriate CSD tag and a contested prod I'm bringing this'n here. 1:1 odds on speedying by the end of the AfD; any takers? Ironholds (talk) 05:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC) Ironholds (talk) 05:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G3. "Turkster is a fictional turkey that my friend and I decided to create one day" = "Hi, I'm violating WP:NFT" = vandalism. Cosmic Latte (talk) 06:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A nice effort, but doesn't quite meet our guidelines for inclusion. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged it for speedy deletion as a pure hoax. Alexius08 (talk) 06:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 21:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Michael Schultz

Neither his music nor his film-making work (imdb) appear to pass WP:MUSIC or WP:BIO for creative professionals, respectively. There is nothing from which to expand this article to establish notability. Article was created as an auto-biography.StarM 05:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 05:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 05:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wish I could disgree with the nom, but Schultz's 3 actor/writer/director films are shorts with no reviews and no notability of their own...else I might have argued keep for his writing and directing, and suggested sandblasting the article to remove POV... but nope. Sorry Gary. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability not established. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 19:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In the absence of evidence that his film executive work is notable to others in the film industry.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:41, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Free Spirits Rowing

There's no evidence this rowing club is notable. I am explicitly not in favor of a merge to Concept2's page as I don't think the company is the right place to discuss every indoor rowing club. I also don't know that the unverified claim that it was the largest indoor rowing club registered with Concept2 is a sufficient claim to notability. StarM 05:04, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 05:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As notability not established and promotional. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not the most entirely non-notable thing I have seen as it does seem to be an active group (for example the forum has around 40K posts) but this group has yet to be significantly mentioned in any reliable sources. There are less than two pages of unique Google Results for "Free Spirits Rowing". Icewedge (talk) 01:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 21:12, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Diablog

Delete. Non-notable neologism. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:03, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Page doesn't seem encyclopedic. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 07:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Dictionary definition without any chance of expansion. Neologism. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:04, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ok...where do we start. Fails WP:NEO, WP:RS, WP:N and is WP:MADEUP and I'm sure we could go on from there. The editor has put his comments on the article page and says "that Diablog could become a term of significant like 'blog' and that it could potentially be..." I would suggest a speedy even or some more deletes in here to WP:SNOW this article... --Pmedema (talk) 19:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball delete. Doesn't seem to fit any speedy criterion (db-web is pushing it) but it sure doesn't look like it has a chance of warranting being kept. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Author Comment (Keep)

This comment is in response to this page having been tagged for speedy deletion. I am the author of the current definition and do not intend this to be advertising for a product. Do the reviewers not agree that Diablog could become a term of significant like 'blog' and that it could potentially be applied to any 2 person computer mediated dialogue, especially if it resulted in some form of publication. I would rather remove the reference to the product than have this potentially important term deleted, and will in the next day or two, try to construct a definition without reference to the product. Meanwhile if anybody else has opinions on this I will take them into account in constructing the new definition.

Delete as per nom. (I added the Author comment as a way of bringing it into discussion) I will now remove it from article.--Beligaronia (talk) 09:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Delete as per Pmedema above. - DustyRain (talk) 17:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Oh and btw, WP:SNOW. WikiScrubber (talk) 22:31, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:COATRACK for the author's blog. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:58, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Author Comment (Keep)

I have now updated the article. Please take another look. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HappyandGrumpy (talk • contribs) 21:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Human Touch Comment (Keep)

This comment is also in response to this page having been tagged for speedy deletion. Why are you all so keen to speedily delete this entry for a term which will doubtless shortly be in common parlance? At this rate it is a wonder anything new gets in here; self-appointed censors are not constructive in my opinion. The definition of neologism is quite apposite and should be be acceptable in noting lanugage development. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Human touch (talk • contribs) 21:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment. As you said yourself the term is not yet in common parlance therefore is not notable and is not yet part of language development. Thank you.--Beligaronia (talk) 02:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-encyclopedic, dictionary definition with some POV and COI from author. -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 02:43, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:44, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Front Royal Interchange

While the interchange may exist, there's no evidence it's notable and while it's claim to notability is weak, there's no evidence of the veracity of that claim. While the highways it connects are notable, there's no reason to believe this interchange is. StarM 04:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 05:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 05:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete for lack of substantive content (A3).- Mgm|^(talk) 09:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Crazy! --Lockley (talk) 05:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 03:44, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fusion Gaming Convention

There are a smattering of ghits and one news article, none of which convey the notability of this convention. StarM 04:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 04:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 04:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Strikes me as being notable and likely there are references to it if not readily available on the internet. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:47, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep — If one print source can be found, there might be others out there. Google is a great search tool, but it's too easy to fall into Futon bias (we all certainly have). MuZemike (talk) 04:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment a gaming convention with no web-based sources? Really? I find that very hard to believe that if it were notable, as opposed to just one of many dime a dozen convention, there would be sources. StarM 13:03, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, part of my keep vote was influenced by the fact that the event seemed to be becoming established. However, in further reviewing their website I found, "Whenever all of us get together there are always talks about having another event and how much fun it would be. Unfortunately the talks usually end in us coming back to reality and realizing that we dont have enough time,money or manpower to host another event." And this indicated the event is no more, so probably it should in fact go bye-bye. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to KHMX. MBisanz ^talk 03:44, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michele Fisher

Ghits counter the claim of being well-known and mixed with false positives only confirm existence and that there is a person with this name who does this job. No evidence she's notable. StarM 04:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 04:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 04:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to KHMX as there is at least one solid third-party reference (which I have added to the article) and sufficient primary sources for verifiability but she doesn't appear to cross the notability threshold on her own. - Dravecky (talk) 05:25, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sufficient reliable sources, or merge and redirect because there's little chance of expansion. _ Mgm|^(talk) 09:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment sufficient reliable sources for what? That she exists? I never doubted that. What I said was there's no evidence she's notable. StarM 13:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as insufficient independent notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 21:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Folsom Public Library

While there are ghits and news hits, they appear limited to the following: 1) library closure notifications 2) events at the library and 3) voting issues, none of which establish notability for the library. Some of the text, i.e. The age, design and limited space of the building no longer sustain the needs of our city’s growing community. appears to be a copyvio but it may be offline as I can't find the source. StarM 04:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 04:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 04:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some references. I suspect that the reason the county library's branch was closed was California's Proposition 13 which put limits on local taxes and led to significant cutbacks in local government services. The references show significant coverage, and more can probably be found. It would be helpful to have information about the library's special collections and whether the library's buildings have won any awards. -- Eastmain (talk) 05:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the references show nothing of notability, local coverage of issues related to funding and expansion. Ones that I'd venture a guess are issues every library faces. I know local ones in two places I've lived have had similar issues and they're not notable either. Closed or not doesn't matter, it doesn't get notability for having been closed. I wold agree that if it's buildings won any awards it might be notable, but I found no evidence of that being the case. StarM 05:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems notable to me. Could certainly be improved. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We dont have clear practices here. In general any library will have many inconsequential newspaper or web notices, dealing with events taking place there, and the periodic bond issue as tax rate approvals. --but they don't really speak to notability. In a range of inconsistent decisions here, usually city library systems are notable, as are large country systems. Town libraries usually not. (And obviously any particular library can be notable for some reason as an exception, just like anything else.)i On the other hand, if people want to interpret this broadly, on the basis that libraries are intrinsically so important that almost any established one is notable on the basis of its importance to the education of the community, I can't see how a librarian like me would object to it--but, honestly, I don't think we've reached that degree of public understanding quite yet, although I'm pleased to see so many wikipedians think so. :).

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:43, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Folsom, California--brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:41, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Eastmain. (This would be a great Johnny Cash parody tune, too!) Ecoleetage (talk) 13:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A library is probably more worthy of a WP article than many other things. Article is sourced. No reason to delete. Northwestgnome (talk) 15:56, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment as DGG says above, that consensus is not clear. Existence is not notability. StarM 17:06, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Those limited sources don't get this across the WP:N or WP:ORG thresholds in my view as they're hardly 'significant coverage' or in-depth. Nick-D (talk) 01:00, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as copyvio Essentially all of the article is a copyvio from their about us page I should have checked that before. If however it were important enough, one could quickly use to to write a proper article. But it isn't-- Folsum, a suburb of Sacramento, is not a county library, but a small city library in a large county. It has 73,000 books; the Sacramento City and County library, with which it is affiliated, has a total of 1.9 million items. that's just one indicator, but it's representative of importance. DGG (talk) 02:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 04:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arev Armenian Folk Ensemble

Fails WP:MUSIC. Nothing on google seems to help. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 04:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Google searches bring up a wiki mention of a 2004 Armenian Music Awards nomination, but I can't verify this with WP:RS. Lots of minor recognition in the Armenian community. Google News hits are local and don't appear to go very deep. • Gene93k (talk) 12:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability suggested by article and limited coverage. I conclude that inclusion makes encyclopedia better and more complete. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:33, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google isn't the only place to find sources. Google drops links that go dead and it's quite possible that something from 2004 can't be readily found online without searching archives. The mention of a nomination for a reward that has existed for 10 years is enough to make an effort and search LexisNexis and dead tree sources. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:43, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Obvious hoax. The International Court of Justice document linked in the article does not include the words "grand", "duchy" or "machias". I would have G3'ed this if I had seen it on NPP. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 04:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Duchy of Machias

Possible hoax, there is only one google hit for "Grand Duchy of Machias" and that is on Wikinews. Synchronism (talk) 04:33, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V. Looks like someone has been having delusions of grandeur. Cosmic Latte (talk) 05:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete as an unverifiable hoax. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Also recommend deleting Template:Infobox Microstate created by the same editor. Edward321 (talk) 15:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:RS, WP:N and is a WP:HOAX. See this [34] change adding claim in this hoax article. Reverted. --Pmedema (talk) 17:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. abf /talk to me/ 19:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above - having worked here, I can attest that no such organization or "microstate" exists and the islands in question are the three in dispute between the US and Canada. Albnd (talk) 22:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete. I have landed on the islands planted flags and followed every rule of claiming terra nullis. What I do need help with is writting the article and sourcing. The International Court of Justice does not recognize either claim. If I were to cite this through there report on the matter and post some photographs I took while planting the flags would that help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheGrandDuke (talk • contribs) 07:30, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think so. If you could find third party sources, maybe. In the mean time, I'd say delete. Peridon (talk) 20:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 21:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Harris

Fails notability as a chess player, no non-trivial press coverage. WP:ATHLETE says notability is achived by competing at the highest level, she has only achieved the relatively weak WFM title which doesn't even come close, and all her tournament wins are junior tournaments.

We've deleted people before with the WFM title like Catherine Lip,[35] and even men with the higher FM title; in fact most men with the still stronger IM title don't have articles. And if you look at the crosstable of the Zonal where Harris got her WFM title (http://www.chesschat.org/archive/index.php/t-5079.html , see post of 12-05-2007, 12:31 PM) the tournament only had one player with an Elo rating over 1900, and ~~she~~ Harris came equal 3rd - not (IMHO) a result which confers notability.

Article was previously kept largely on the basis of press coverage, but the two press items offered were trivial: Penrith Press and Chessbase. Penrith Press is a local newspaper, one of the "Community Newspapers" published by News Limited.[36] If it's anything like my local community newspaper, it has little stories on local junior athletes all the time, and this does not confer notability. Chessbase is indeed a notable chess publication, but if you look at the article in question,[37] it is simply a background piece on the Australian contingent going to a large tournament. It's not clear why they profiled Australian players - it appears that it was simply because someone put together a nice photo piece and sent it in to Chessbase - but I don't see how one article automatically confers notability on the seven players they've profiled. Peter Ballard (talk) 03:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not sufficiently notable at this time. She has potential to be notable by Wikipedia standards but I don't think she is there yet. Her success so far is in events limited by age, sex, and nationality. We (the chess project) usually include ones prominent by one of these (i.e. a junior champion, a national champion, etc), but not by three such limiting factors. Bubba73 (talk), 03:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. —Cunard (talk) 05:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Cunard (talk) 05:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. When a tournament is limited to someone of a particular age, and gender, and nationality, there is a good chance that it has excluded all the notable players, so that even winning that tournament is not a real claim to notability. The 1800-rating is well below master level, and far below the International Master level (~2400+) where notability starts becoming borderline. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC

Delete for reasons given by nominator. A 19-year-old of either gender rated 1875 is spectacularly non-notable. My own rating at Harris' age was 2044, and I have no doubt that that was clearly non-notable. Krakatoa (talk) 20:03, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:51, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Schneider

Philip Schneider died 12 years ago and before he died he claimed to have killed two aliens. This UFO-Alien-Conspiracy cruft fails WP:BIO and WP:V. BBiiis08 (talk) 02:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Found sources that proved his existence. Found sources that talked about him. Even found sources that called him an expert. Could not find a single source that could in any way be called "reputable". --Kickstart70TC 04:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but perform massive cleanup. With the amount of sources that exist, I can't see why this should be deleted. Of course we all have our own ideas about aliens and UFO conspiracies, but that doesn't make sources from people who believe in it any less reputable. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. I agree that it needs a massive clean-up. But I have reservations to whether this person passes WP:BIO as BBiiis08 has mentioned. Dengero (talk) 13:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. __meco (talk) 09:25, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. __meco (talk) 09:25, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep there's gotta be a reason to keep an article about someone who claims to have done top secret underground government work... isn't there?--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Making outlandish claims is not a criteria for keeping an article. As of now it just a bunch of conspiracy-cruft that fails WP:V. BBiiis08 (talk) 18:04, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say I believe the story... but the claim? I think there's something there worth listing.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On what basis of WP:V, do you want to see this kept? BBiiis08 (talk) 18:13, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- There are number of ghits from alien-related websites, but not a single news result on reaction to his claims. I am just wondering, was this whole a one sided affair? Was he ever criticized or responded by the government for his alleged role? ^LeaveSleaves _talk 18:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see, there is no reliable sources on this. BBiiis08 (talk) 22:36, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 19:21, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete very close to a speedy delete as nonsense, no evidence that any significant number of people took it seriously, even among t he sort of people who are likely to take such claims at facevalue. DGG (talk) 08:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and DGG. GlassCobra 22:55, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Kennedale Independent School District. MBisanz ^talk 03:43, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kennedale_Wildcat_Band

The school appears unnotable and has not won any major national competitions, the article seems to have been created by a person of the school itself, possibly a band member. --Brandon (TehBrandon) (talk) 02:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn. JJL (talk) 02:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge to Kennedale Independent School District. Its just a highschool band and highschool extracurriculars, save for a few select exceptions, are non-notable. Insufficient reliable sourcing, or any sourcing for that matter; only 61 Ghits total ([38]). Icewedge (talk) 03:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge, but do get rid of it quickly. Bongo matic 08:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Cunard (talk) 06:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. —Cunard (talk) 06:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge most of this to Kennedale High School rather than the school district article but merge the few non-high school related parts to Kennedale Independent School District. - Dravecky (talk) 16:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Addendum: I've performed quite a bit of cleanup and wikification on this article. If it could be sourced from third-party publications, I would happily reevaluate my initial "merge" reaction to "keep" but without such references then independent notability is not established. - Dravecky (talk) 19:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep might be bad precedent, but I'm going with keep on this one. I'd like to see the article expanded with more sources but I'm okay with it.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge seems reasonable. Perhaps it can be a sub-article? ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 21:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Colorado Amendment 58 (2008)

Failed state legislation. Seems to fail WP:IINFO. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 02:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or maybe merge into a single article containing November 2008 U.S. state ballot propositions. It looks like there exists information that could be used to improve an article about this. As a state-wide ballot proposition, it's probably notable enough. As for that other wiki that I linked to, I'm not sure if it's an appropriate substitute for Wikipedia for information like this—does it have sufficient neutrality, for example? TheFeds 02:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheFeds (talk • contribs) [reply]
Keep - I'm not in a position to look up the appropriate references, because I'm not in Colorado, but this has to be documented well enough for at least a small article. Any proposed legislative amendment that is voted on by the population of a state has to be notable. There has to be supporting doctrine for the amendment, parliamentary debate, and so on. - Richard Cavell (talk) 03:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't think this information should be deleted from Wikipedia. I do think that it is a possibility to merge this into a larger article; however, let it be noted that other states such as California also have articles for each individual ballot proposition (Search the categories for California ballot propositions, 2008). --Heero Kirashami (talk) 04:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. —Cunard (talk) 06:03, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep backed by reliable and verifiable sources to support notability. Alansohn (talk) 17:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable. Everyking (talk) 04:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 19:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:52, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brooklawn, Connecticut

This is not classified by either the state of Connecticut nor the USGS GNIS as a populated place. I believe this does not merit a stand alone article. --Polaron | Talk 02:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 02:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete.~~ Entirely non-notable. ----Brandon (TehBrandon) (talk) 02:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge After some more review this seems to more worthy of a merge than a delete, consider this a merge/weak delete.----Brandon (TehBrandon) (talk) 23:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question Can we verify that it's real? If so, this shouldn't be deleted; it's too small and insignificant to stand as its own article, but if it's real it should be merged or redirected to another article. I'm going to check for references. Nyttend (talk) 04:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete I expected to find references, but there's nothing on Google Maps or Mapquest; and the GNIS only lists the Brooklawn Country Club and the Brooklawn Seventh Day Adventist Church. Find sources and it will be a good merge topic, but without sources we can't verify that it exists at all. Nyttend (talk) 04:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brooklawn actually does exist as a sub-neighborhood of the "West Side" neighborhood of Bridgeport (Brooklawn is generally the area between Brooklawn Ave and Park Ave north of Route 1). The church is in Bridgeport but the country club is in the adjacent town of Fairfield (specifically in the Stratfield neighborhood). Since the West Side neighborhood does not have an article, I suppose a redirect to Bridgeport might be feasible. --Polaron | Talk 04:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and possible merge the bit about the river to the Bridgeport article. This entry is nothing more than a map in prose. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect / Weak delete I did the same GNIS search and found no reference to Brooklawn as a defined place. If there is any other evidence, I will reconsider, but there seems to be nothing other than a country club and a church that use the name. Alansohn (talk) 17:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 16:44, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Salisbury

fails WP:CREATIVE. his IMBD reference indicates very limited notability. Michellecrisp (talk) 01:47, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 02:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 02:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 02:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. Even with limited notability, we could retain info about him in the article on the station he works for. Mgm|^(talk) 09:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As suggested by nominator, the person does not pass WP:CREATIVE. Very limited career, with radio show hosting as the only barely notable work. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 18:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn, non-admin closure. Pcap ping 12:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Science: The Short Life and Weird Times of Cold Fusion

No evidence that this book passes WP:BK. While it is a useful reference for the Cold fusion article, I don't see what justifies a separate article about it. Pcap ping 01:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 02:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 02:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Gary Taubes, but get rid of the "table of contents." Cosmic Latte (talk) 03:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This book is already discussed in his bio, and this separate article doesn't have much additional content (except for the TOC). Pcap ping 06:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I lean toward keeping it, because it is a book by a notable author on a notable topic that happens, in my opinion, to be pretty good. However, I am not an expert in the minimum-notability-for-wikipedia department, so if others think it should go, that is OK with me. Olorinish (talk) 03:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. If the table of contents is removed, there's not enough info left to sustain an article. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:25, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. __meco (talk) 09:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gary Taubes. Independent notability for the book not established. • Gene93k (talk) 11:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep on the basis of the reviews of the book in serious periodicals: Worldcat lists 3: Burr, A. F. 1994. "Bad Science: The Short Life and Weird Times of Cold Fusion by Gary Taubes". AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICS. 62, no. 6: 575.; Taubes, Gary, and Bruce V Lewenstein. "Bad Science: The Short Life and Weird Times of Cold Fusion." Isis. 86. 1 (1995): 144; Hoffman, N. J. "BAD SCIENCE The Short Life and Weird Times of Cold Fusion I." FUSION TECHNOLOGY -ILLINOIS-. 25. 2 (1994): 225. One professional magazine aimed at university teachers, the major history of science academic journal, and he speciality journal in the field. That's significant coverage indeed for something which is basically popular science. That's enough for notability by our standards. In addition, the book itself is found in 992 worldCat libraries, which is very substantial for a science book of this sort. I havent even looked for reviews in popular periodicals, but there are certain to be some. Reviews probe the notability of a book. The article needs rewriting, but that is , as always, possible. I see a certain trend here to nominate books for deletion tht happen to talk about subjects that some people would like to demphasise. That may not be the case here--I rather think the nomination was spurrred by the very low quality of the article, and the lack of attempt of it to find what seems to be very obvious sourcing. DGG (talk) 08:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 21:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Croatian mafia

The article is completely unreferenced, and makes wide-sweeping negative claims that are not neutral. Jeff3000 (talk) 01:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Croatian_mafia#Germany could be a WP:BLP issue, too. Cosmic Latte (talk) 01:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per nom, I would've speedied it though. Dengero (talk) 01:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominated. There are ridiculous generalizations like "they wear jogging suits (Adidas and Nike),Nike Shox,silver chains,expensive watches and they have a buzz cut."Synchronism (talk) 03:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've verified at least some of the claims using Google, but the article is unsalvageably bad writing. It needs to be written more objectively using sources. - Richard Cavell (talk) 07:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per previous comments. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (with comment). The article is a bunch of unsourced generalizations. However, RS searches for the people named bring up several murdered alleged gangsters. The reputable press does not say "mafia." Some low quality sources do. • Gene93k (talk) 11:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SOURCE abf /talk to me/ 19:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per all of the above. Tatarian (talk) 00:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 21:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Legitimist line of succession to the English and Scottish thrones in 1714

Multiple problems with this article. PatGallacher (talk) 01:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Among the problems with this article are: -it is original research, -since Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, it is questionable whether even the "official" line of succession at any specific point is encyclopedic, never mind any rival line, -the term "legitimist" is dubious in this context. PatGallacher (talk) 01:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AFD discussions have already lead to the deletion of similar articles, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Line of succession to James I, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Line of succession to Henry VIII, and Line of succession to the English throne in 1701 was recently prod'ed without even going to AFD. PatGallacher (talk) 01:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Original reasearch, filled with meaningless crap. Tavix (talk) 01:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is most certainly NOT original research. Look at (for example) English Historical Documents volume 10, page 965, which presents exactly this information. This is not the only print version of this information. An example of an online version of this information is here. There are frequent references in English historical works to the fifty-plus people who were excluded from the succession in 1714 when the Elector of Hanover took the throne; this is most certainly not "an indiscriminate collection of information". If the word "legitimist" in the title is considered POV, then the page can be renamed; that is not a reason for deletion. Noel S McFerran (talk) 01:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as noted by McFerran: if regular historical works treat with exactly this subject, it can't possibly be the kind of original research that we don't allow. Moreover, "legitimist" really isn't a POV term: it refers (if I understand rightly) to those who support the legal line of succession. See, for example, the legitimists of France: they supported a line of the monarchy that followed standard laws of succession. Nyttend (talk) 04:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (noting that I am a proud Scot). This is not original research and the reference cited is a reliable source. McWomble (talk) 07:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I am the author of this work and it is certainly not original research. This line and references to it have been made numerous times in various sources I have worked in. Considering that there has not been such a line available on Wikipedia before, I thought it proper to include one. Legitimist is certainly not a POV and I do not see at all how this can be viewed as "original research" when every aspect of the page is historically accurate. If someone does not like the style of the page, feel free to change it, but I believe this page fits perfectly with Wikipedia content.
–Darius von Whaleyland, Great Khan of the Barbarian Horde 10:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since it's clear that more than one person cares about this article, but that other line-of-succession articles are still subject to being nominated, I'll ask, what is the purpose of charting this type of information? I'm asking this as a neutral question, with no intent to sound critical of this aspect of royal genealogy, but other people will ask the same thing. Am I wrong in describing this is a list of 72 persons who were alive when Queen Anne died on August 1, 1714, with a ranking of how close to the throne each of them would have been at that particular moment (that is, if James Francis Edward Stuart had been crowned King)? I get the premise, but I confess that I don't understand the significance. Feel free to portray me as a dunderhead if there's something that I'm missing. Mandsford (talk) 15:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your description of the list is accurate. The significance is that - but for the Act of Settlement 1701 - each of the first fifty-odd people would have had more right to the throne than the Elector Georg I of Hanover (who actually got the throne). This situation is often referred to in historical accounts of the period. Some people are interested in knowing exactly who these people were (especially considering the fact that they include the sovereigns or heirs of a number of European states). I have not argued for the retention of other historical succession lists - but this particular one is widely referred to in published scholarship. Noel S McFerran (talk) 18:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I appreciate the explanation, and it does place this is context, which I hope will be added to the article. What I see is that (1) This is a line of people who were, in effect, barred from eligibility to the throne a law against Roman Catholic succession; (2) King George I would have been 57th in line had it not been for the law, rather than 1st; and (3) many of those first 56 who were disqualified were notable in their own right, with four of the first eight becoming monarchs in France, Spain, and Sardinia (the line for the 19th century Italian throne). Adding to that the fact that it is referred to as part of historical scholarship (and some of those references need to be added as well), it appears to be an expansion upon an encyclopedic topic. Mandsford (talk) 21:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If we are to retain this page then Jacobite would be a better term that Legitimist, the latter term is widely used in French history but not British history, and terms like this are question-begging and POV in some contexts. PatGallacher (talk) 16:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sourced, discriminate, encyclopaedic, historically significant. TerriersFan (talk) 20:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- The article deals with a legitimate issue, but I agree that "Jacobite" would be better than "legitimist". The constituional principle is that British Sovereignty rests in the Crown in Parliament. That was the decision under the Act of Succession, which makes the Hanoverian line the legitimate one. My first reaction was surprise that the Young Pretender and his Cardinal brother Henry did not appear, but I now see that it deals with persons alive at the accession of George I of England, who might have had a better right to the throne if Protestant. I do not think that this is well-expressed in the introduction, but that is an issue requiring the article to be improved, not deleted. REname and Keep. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No consensus to delete. The discussion on renaming can continue on the article's talk page (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Double burden

Sort of a neologism, or perhaps more correctly trying to define a reasonably common phrase with a particular defintion that is not universal. Weakly sourced (the web source doesn't even use the phrase "double burden"), seems more like original research. I don't see why this phrase with this definition deserves a Wikipedia page. Previously added PROD tag which was removed. Some guy (talk) 01:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to "Second shift (sociology)"—that's the term that Hochschild famously uses. "Double burden" has, however, been used by other scholars. Cosmic Latte (talk) 01:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Second shift which currently redirects to this title (the sociology modifier would only make the title bulky). - Mgm|^(talk) 09:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Second shift only redirected to this title because Uncle G changed it today, without discussion, in response to this proposed deletion. I have restored the redirect to shift work. Some guy (talk) 00:03, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A book written by Phyllis Moen, professor, McKnight Presidential Chair in Sociology, at the University of Minnesota, and published by the University of Wisconsin Press, is not a weak source for a sociology subject. This is an expert writing in her field of expertise. Moen uses the name "double burden". As do Weatherall, Joshi, Macran in Social Science and Medicine (1994 Jan;38(2):285–297) and Oropesa in the Journal of Family Issues (doi:10.1177/019251393014003006). And those were just picked at random. Barbara Engel, cited in the further reading section, is a professor at the University of Colorado, and she calls it a "double burden" on the very page number given in the citation. In the same book, on page 122, Judith P. Zinsser, professor at Miami University, and Bonnie S. Anderson, professor at the City University of New York, define "double burden" using that very name.
The nominator has clearly made zero effort whatsoever in looking for sources, even after it was shown by example that sources exist. Xe hasn't even looked at the sources cited. Not following the instructions in Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Nomination, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, Wikipedia:Deletion policy, and User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage#What to do will yield poor nominations such as this one. You should look for sources yourself before nominating articles for deletion. You do not help Wikpedia one bit by repeatedly nominating articles for deletion instead of working on improving them. Uncle G (talk) 13:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I agree with Uncle G that nominators ought to do their homework before heading to AfD. Having some background in sociology myself, I have a strong intuition that "second shift" is the more famous term; I'd never heard of "double burden," and must confess I have trouble distinguishing between the two, and thus don't understand why two terms are being used at all. The source I cited above uses them interchangeably. In any event, this is most certainly not WP:OR, so this should be a talk page discussion about whether to rename the article, about how to distinguish between "double burden" and "second shift," etc.—not an AfD. I encourage the nominator to withdraw. Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you guys are dicks. I did look through the web source, which doesn't use the term, as I said. I also did a web search for "double burden" and found pages on malnutrition, racism, obesity, etc. Most of the pages that come up seem to be related to income and nutrition and the relation between these things. I don't happen to have the book or be an expert in sociology, so I haven't done my homework and I don't know what I'm talking about? Apparently you both have sociology backgrounds and Uncle G has the very book. And yet look, Latte hasn't ever heard "double burden" used in this way.

I'm disgusted with you, "Uncle G". You repeatedly insult me in an unjustified manner and make ridiculous claims like I "made zero effort whatsoever". You don't know what I'm doing. I certainly haven't been screaming that this article should be deleted, I put in on AfD so rational civil people could discuss it. Some administrator. Some guy (talk) 20:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure the nomination was made in good faith, and I apologize if I seem to have implied otherwise. Different people will conduct different searches, which will yield different results. However, given the results that Uncle G and I came up with, it would seem that the appropriate place to discuss this article is Talk:Double burden rather than here. Cosmic Latte (talk) 11:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: renaming the article to "Second Shift" without the "(sociology)" bit would keep the same problem of it having a name that the average person wouldn't associate with the topic and seems more appropriately applied to a different area (i.e. shift work, which is where the second shift page appropriately redirected before Uncle G changed it). There's even a comment on the "double burden" talk page saying "second shift" should not redirect to it because "nintey-five percent" of users will not benefit from this counter-intuitive redirect. Apparently Uncle G is putting zero effort into what he's doing, since the "shift work" page still says "second shift" will redirect to it. Additionally, "first shift" and "third shift" redirects to "shift work", so it is extremely foolish to have "second shift" redirect somewhere else. EDIT: I have restored the 'second shift' redirect to 'shift work', as the change was made without discussion and contrary to previously expressed opinions. A proper discussion should be held before the redirect is changed. Some guy (talk) 20:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I thin it pretty much the standard term, but the subject is real, and if there;s a better title , we cn change it. DGG (talk) 08:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 03:41, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Full House characters

Non-notable. Non encyclopedic. Trivial. Wikipedia is not a collection of useless information — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 00:47, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are many "list of characters in X" articles, though I've never seen one so incredibly bloated. Some guy (talk) 01:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Weak delete: Material is sufficiently covered in Full_House#Characters. Cosmic Latte (talk) 01:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Given that this article is substantially larger than that section, on what basis do you assess sufficiency? Jclemens (talk) 02:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: On the basis provided in the nomination. The list is overkill. Cosmic Latte (talk) 02:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Per, WP:ATD, then, the proper course of action is to trim the excess, rather than delete the list. Jclemens (talk) 02:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - When you trim the excess, you have Full_House#Characters. Hence my original Delete !vote. Cosmic Latte (talk) 02:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Your position is clear, thanks. I disagree with it as both unnecessarily severe compared to editing and unsupported by policy. Jclemens (talk) 02:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Changed to "Weak delete" per Zagalejo. Finally, a source! Still, per WP:GNG, I'd like to see significant independent coverage. Cosmic Latte (talk) 11:25, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 02:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 02:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lists of characters from notable network television shows are themselves sufficiently notable; merging would excessively enlarge Full House. Jclemens (talk) 02:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: In other words, it passes WP:LISTCRUFT: "In general, a 'list of X' should only be created if X itself is a legitimate encyclopedic topic that already has its own article. The list should originate as a section within that article, and should not be broken out into a separate article until it becomes so long as to be disproportionate to the rest of the article." What I want to know is, why is it of encyclopedic value that Michelle bought Shorty the Donkey for 221 dollars? Non-notable characters of a notable program are no more notable than non-notable citizens of a notable country. Cosmic Latte (talk) 02:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Had you noticed that Steve Hale is the only character listed that is also covered in the main article? There are 40+ other characters referenced in the list. If Shorty is NN, delete Shorty, not the entire list. Jclemens (talk) 02:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The main characters are listed in both places. Shorty is a shining example of why this list should go, but the rest of it still qualifies IMO, even if it doesn't shine as brightly. Cosmic Latte (talk) 03:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Demonstrate that this stuff is notable, however, and I'd be happy to soften my stance. Cosmic Latte (talk) 03:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Trimming and cleanup is needed, but a list of characters from a long-running series is appropriate. --MASEM 02:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Trim if necessary, but its a notable and acceptable list. Umbralcorax (talk) 03:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Notable per what sources? Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED from the show itself. Cosmic Latte (talk) 03:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: However precedent has been set for spinning off character pages and episode lists for TV series, especially long-running series, and WP:NOTINHERITED is not applicable to pages that are spun-off from a main in this fashion. 23skidoo (talk) 16:25, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge, cleanup is not a deletion criteria. 76.66.201.13 (talk) 06:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this was one of the highest rated shows of its era. This content is entirely verifiable and useful. Some editors may wish to trim it a bit. - Richard Cavell (talk) 07:33, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with the reasoning provided by and the anon above. It might need some level of trimming, but spinning off character lists that would otherwise needlessly enlarge the main article is a valid use of Wikipedia:Summary style - Mgm|^(talk) 09:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT for several points: this is basically an indiscriminate collection of trivial information of minor characters. There are no supporting references, and I personally doubt that you'd be able to find suitable references for many, if not all of these characters. Also under WP:FICT, the whole article is written in-universe; if this were trimmed down to suitability under those guidelines, you'd end up with a bulletted list of characters and actor names, and again, WP:NOT, this is not a fan-site, there are suitable places for such. Yngvarr (t) (c) 11:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep I hated Full House. But this is not a "list of indiscriminate information" because it focuses only on "characters" in "Full House" ... it is a widely-viewed television series that had plenty of outside news coverage and is therefore notable... We have plenty of lists of characters here already, so I gather that we think it would be "encyclopedic" ... The list is appropriate to the parent topic... and as for it being "trivial"--who cares? If there's sources for notability, then it's in. Just because we might not "like" a topic doesn't mean it should be deleted. One editor's "trivia" is another editors "specialist topic" --Paul McDonald (talk) 16:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't confuse notability with popularity. According to WP:N, "Notability is distinct from 'fame,' 'importance,' or 'popularity,' although these may positively correlate with it." In order to demonstrate such a correlation, reliable sources need to be presented. News coverage of the show in general is already of limited relevance to an encyclopedia, and doesn't imply the notability of minor characters, any more than news coverage of my hometown—a tourist town, so it's popular, too!—makes me notable. Cosmic Latte (talk) 17:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:OUTCOMES such TV shows are presumably notable. Places that really exist are inherently notable, too. Jclemens (talk) 17:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't doubt that the show itself is notable, but per WP:RS, not per its popularity independent of WP:RS (actually its presumed popularity, because we don't truly know just how popular a show is without sources). My town is notable, but I don't inherit that notability. Full House is notable, but Freddy/Freida the Fish? Cosmic Latte (talk) 18:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Until recently deleted, the primary Full House article had a sourced (Nielsen) list of ratings for the series, showing it was consistently within the top 30 shows. Why this was deleted I'm not sure, but surely is an indicator that it's not just presumed popularity? Perhaps that removal should be reverted also, was claimed as "fandom". dpwoodford (talk) 14:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As per my non-vote comment above, precedent has been set for articles of this nature for long-running series. Content issues can be handled at the article level. AFD is to determine if an article is viable, and based upon precedent it is. 23skidoo (talk) 16:25, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' a perfectly justifiable fork of a notable television series. Alansohn (talk) 17:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep About a dozen characters appeared in the opening credits, and there were many other recurring characters who are mentioned in independent sources. This seems like a valid spin-out from the main article. It could use some cleanup, but AFD is not for cleanup. Zagalejo^^^ 23:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I removed the original deletion, apologies if I went about it the wrong way, but my points pretty much covered here. List of characters from a TV show is notable on precedent if nothing else. Possibly clean-up required (though I don't object to it being as extensive as possible), but deletion absolutely incorrect. Dpwoodford (talk) 02:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or at least trim severely. Bloated article that has little relevant to do with why Full House is notable, even if Full House is in fact notable enough to warrant all these sub-pages. Much of the information even appears defined improperly: "Pam is seen only once in the series, portrayed by actress Christie Houser in the episode Goodbye Mr. Bear in a home video, which depicts Pam and Danny returning from the hospital with newborn baby Michelle...," is listed under Recurring characters even though she only appeared once—clearly not recurring. Bolwerk (talk) 06:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Wow. You've not made any contributions under this username in almost a year--welcome back. What motivated you to pick out this AfD to comment on upon your return? Jclemens (talk) 08:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Editorial changes and merit can be discussed subsequently on the article discussion (I assume recurring was meant as features regularly by name, but not in person, not sure if this is defined in WP guidelines somewhere). Nonetheless, not sure how this warrants deletion. Does any character list (24 etc) serve to prove notability? dpwoodford (talk) 11:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its a major sitcom that ran for 8 years. During this time there were obviously many plotlines and many characters. Conceivably we could get it all into one article, but that would probably be book-length. The only way to handle subjects of this sort is to divide up the material in some reasonable way, and to separate the characters is an obvious step. Its the coverage of the fiction as a whole that has to b=include more than plot, and it does--the part of the coverage discussing the plot and characters will just discuss the plot and characters. I think a number of us regard this entire show as unfortunate--personally, I regard the entire genre as unfortunate--but t his shouldn't affect how we handle it, if people who are willing to watch it are willing to write the articles. I gather from one of the comments above that there may be inaccuracies, and there solution is of course to fix them. DGG (talk) 08:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A useless list of characters and other trivia from a not very popular show. Completely un-encyclopedic.MiltonP Ottawa (talk) 07:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Full House was a very popular show. Maybe not in Canada, but in the US, it ran for eight seasons, and the reruns are still shown at least twice a day. Zagalejo^^^ 19:11, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral for now. I can judge only if a serious cleanup is performed. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per DGG. If we don't already have a notability guideline for list of characters maybe we should create one. This show, IMHO, was rather insipid but it was a major network leader and launched the careers of at least a handful of actors. So then it comes down to can the article be improved through regular editing? Yep. -- Banjeboi 00:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG and Paul McDonald. GlassCobra 22:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:41, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aqib Maniar

Uncertain claim of notability ("several . . . columns for . . . well-known . . . Newspapers" could mean several regular columns, or several guest appearances), but weak at best. References insufficient.

Also appears to be a CoI. Bongo matic 00:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 02:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 02:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unremarkable, the references aren't reliable, but there's a potential in future. Dengero (talk) 13:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:34, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The references are unreliable and don't support the idea this is a profesional columnist. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability whatsoever. Looks like a minor journalist who does not fit WP:CREATIVE. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 13:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:23, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Active Lancer

Unremarkable Game. I would have filed a speedy delete except there was no such option haha. Dengero (talk) 02:03, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication of notability.Synchronism (talk) 03:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Eastmain (talk) 03:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some references. -- Eastmain (talk) 03:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eastmain's improvements, notability is established. Jclemens (talk) 04:03, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two of the references are by the same person. In none of the references is it described by itself, all are announcing releases of several games. As I said, notability is not indicated by the article. Are there any favorable reviews noting public interest in this game? The article itself states it was an unsuccessful game.Synchronism (talk) 04:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The references still represent significant coverage, even if other games are discussed in the same references. {{WP:N]] says: "Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive." -- Eastmain (talk) 04:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The guidelines state that the coverage must be non-trivial. The provided sources, and the other references I found in a gsearch are all trivial, short reviews among many or sites to download the game. This fails the notability standards, unless a better, non-trivial reference can be found. Theseeker4 (talk) 15:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see any rationale for deletion. No assertion of importance might work for speedy, but for an AFD some indication that sources were looked for first would be helpful, since notability is the issue. Though I'd agree that what is in effect a single source does not cut the mustard in relation to reception, there's an in-depth review on Inside Mac Games which google spat out as the first result when I searched for the game's name along with 'game' and 'review'. Someone another 17:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm happy with the MacWorld and InsideMacGames reviews as they appear to be reliable sources, and are substantial enough to satisfy WP:GNG. The NYT ref was merely a publisher's description, so I have removed it. Marasmusine (talk) 00:38, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete — If additional sources can be found besides the good coverage from MacWorld, I'll be happy to change to keep. However, the general notability guideline recommends multiple sources, so I am inclined to side on the deletion side for now. MuZemike (talk) 04:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about the inside mac games review above? Someone another 15:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Nothing wrong with the core of this article, just needs improving. Ryan4314 (talk) 01:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article is sufficiently cited. Icewedge (talk) 00:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:56, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plushgun

Article on band with only one, so-far-unreleased, album. No real sources attesting to notability. CalendarWatcher (talk) 01:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 04:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete As per one unreleased album. If I'm being misled by nominator they should be severely punished!ChildofMidnight (talk) 10:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Record deal with Tommyboy? Hmmm. I'm bowing out. ChildofMidnight (talk) 11:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete. They are one of the biggest Tommy Boy artists (they have been the featured band on the Tommy Boy Website since summer). They recently performed live on WGN in Chicago and were in an episode of Gossip Girl. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.159.192.10 (talk) 16:31, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. How Plushgun gained popularity is notable. It's unique how the band was spotted by a notable independent label, Tommy Boy Records at South by Southwest music festival because of Plushgun's initial expose through We Need Girlfriends and the website Ourstage. Is there any other band that signed a major record deal because of a youtube video? Plushgun was also featured in an National Public Radio article here: [39] Noneforall (talk) 01:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Very limited third party coverage as in Google news search. Michellecrisp (talk) 03:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Noneforall. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An interesting story about the band's signing, which could show notability, if it were covered in reliable sources. However, the ref in the article is a press release, and I didn't see any third party coverage. gnfnrf (talk) 15:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Third party source explaining relevance of Tommy Boy signing band through Ourtstage: http://media.www.uwmleader.com/media/storage/paper980/news/2008/11/13/Music/Your-Stage.Is.Ourstage-3540004-page2.shtml —Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.159.64.10 (talk) 16:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment With this new source, Plushgun has been the subject of two nontrivial publications (the other being from Spinner.com, here: [40])about Plushgun's relationship to Ourstage and Tommy Boy Records. Another article from NPR talked about the band [41], but not about how Plushgun was signed by Tommy Boy Records. Noneforall (talk) 22:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:MUSIC, articles in college papers are "generally.. considered trivial". The new source is the UWM Leader. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 21:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:MUSIC criterion #1. In addition to the Spinner and NPR stories, I found a review in the Orlando Sentinel by Jim Abbott: "Plushgun", 2008-08-22, p. 32. Also found a mention about Plushgun's Tommy Boy deal in The Christian Science Monitor, "OurStage hosts online talent show" by Matthew Shaer, 2008-08-22, p. 25. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 20:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

B.N.F (J-Com man)

non-notable. StarTrain1 (talk) 04:35, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and fully translate I believe this guy is notable. Might need to be retitled and needs better references. ChildofMidnight (talk) 09:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:20, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but retitle to "Kotegawa Takashi" (apparently his real name), and redirect "B.N.F" and "J-Com man" to that article. Also note a related article on Japanese Wikipedia. Maybe someone who can read that can verify it? TheFeds 02:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheFeds (talk • contribs) [reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 20:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scale relativity

Non-notable, fringe theory that has not received notice from outside sources and so therefore does not belong in Wikipedia. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:26, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable fringe theory. Verbal chat 13:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No non-trivial independent reliable coverage from the science press, and even less from the physics community. - Eldereft (cont.) 15:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's a well presented theory. I see no reason for deletion if some coverage is shown. SydLyra (talk) 23:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Indeed if some coverage were shown it would be a keep. But none has been shown or can be found by those looking into this subject. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nottale's theory has been around for a while, it is still resulting in published papers (here for example is an updated list:[42]) and it is therefore living proof that scientific thinking isn't completely blinkered by orthodoxy.Lucretius (talk) 08:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Wikipedia article does not have a proper discussion on the Lorentzian form, and the Gallilean form is trivial. The references in the article do not convince me that this is any more than a fringe theory. QuantumCyclops (talk) 18:57, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 00:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has received enough attention from sources other than the originator "scale relativity" -author:nottale gives 578 gscholar hits. "scale relativity" gives 666 ghits, "Laurent Nottale" 184 ghits with citation numbers 254, 201, 107 ... that would usually result in keep. Fringiness is besides the point at AfD, what matters is notice by independent sources.John Z (talk) 00:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment are all those hits relevant? Nottale has done a lot of work on other topics. Are there any articles/editorials in Nature or the popular science journals about this theory specifically? Verbal chat 08:03, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lucretius and John Z. Indeed, WP:FRINGE is primarily a complement to WP:NPOV. Cosmic Latte (talk) 01:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a fringe theory, but it's a notable fringe theory. Qwfp (talk) 07:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm no scholor on these types of things, but in terms of structure the article is detailed and it isn't clearly something we don't specifically want to see on Wikipedia. I'd have suggested a weak oppose due to lack of refs, and the article could certainly benefit from relevant referencing, but as it's been indicated there are papers published on it so these can be incorporated. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 13:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, No comments. Denis Tarasov (talk) 13:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This fringe theory appears to be notable. I am not going to argue that this theory is right or wrong, but only want to note that Nottale sometimes manages to publish articles in respectable journals and has his own circle of admires among physicists. Ruslik (talk) 12:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. absent significant third party coverage Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vulture's

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Vulture's

Article does not explain how this software is notable (WP:N), nor provide any references, 3rd party or otherwise (WP:V) Marasmusine (talk) 15:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. Marasmusine (talk) 15:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Interesting genre and derivation of existing (and perhaps non-notable) games. But no shred of notability or significance established other than the fact of its existence.ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If there is an article or list online about free/OSS RPG games, vulture's gets mentioned [43][44][45][46][47]. Vulture's was also mentioned in as well as bundled with linux format issue 80[48]. Entro-P (talk) 09:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The notability threshold requires that coverage be significant. The links provided above are either one sentence, or even only mentioned in passing. Really only about.com and madison.com are reliable sources, and could be used to support an equally short mention in the Nethack article. Marasmusine (talk) 09:47, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets the usual inclusion threshold. I do not see any reason to argue for a special exception in this case. Wily D 12:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Curious, can you explain exactly which sources you are using to show how it meets the general notability guideline? Marasmusine (talk) 12:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Here's some more coverage, for anybody who wants to attempt to save this article, but I simply can find no reason that it should be saved. Per WP:TOYS, it is unlikely that this is notable. DARTH PANDA ^duel 20:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep it is a very meagre stub, but I believe it has some potential. Hopefully the games WikiProject will show it a little TLC in the near future. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 01:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Darth_Panda and nom. I don't see the "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" that would take this over the notability bar; the article is unreferenced, and doesn't even assert notability for its subject. This is one open-source software project amongst thousands, with nothing to prove that it significantly stands out from the crowd. EyeSerene^talk 15:47, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've not a clue about this subject, but don't leave it a redlink: if it's deleted, it would be quite reasonable to recreate as a redirect to Vulture. Nyttend (talk) 00:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you meant Vultures (plural), which already redirects to Vulture, this however is Vulture's (possessive) as a shortening and combination-article for two games, Vulture's Eye and Vulture's Claw entro-p (talk) 16:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge/Redirect: Vulture's Eye is a graphical user interface for Nethack, which is notable enough to have its own Wikipedia entry; failing keep it should redirect to Nethack with a suitable merged section.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 02:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note also that Falcon's Eye, an earlier Nethack GUI, has its own article as well (albeit a stub); if that is notable then so is Vulture's Eye.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 02:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Did a real quick check. Falcon's Eye has an article written about it published by O'Reilly [49]. It doesn't mention either Vulture anywhere, so I don't see how this is notable if that is. Marasmusine (talk) 10:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - That article was written many years before Vulture's existed so there's no way Vulture's could have been mentioned. Falcon's Eye development ceased, Vulture's Eye is a continuation of that source code. Everything that Peltonen "envisioned" as cited in that article by yourself, has already been implemented in Vulture's Eye. entro-p (talk) 12:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I know this is probably the wrong place for such questions, but I find I need to ask. Vulture's refers to two projects. Vulture's Eye (NetHack) Vulture's Claw (Slash'EM). It's the same interface, but for two game engines. If it was to merge would it have to merge twice, into NetHack as well as into Slash'EM? entro-p (talk) 07:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - That in itself is probably a good reason to keep the Vulture's article separate and crosslink it to both Nethack and Slash'Em.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 18:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't suppose anyone has found any coverage of the type suggested by the WP:GNG, yet? Marasmusine (talk) 23:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A google search for Nethack and "Vulture's Eye" produces some 1300 hits, most of which appear to refer to the installation or inclusion of the package under Windows, MAC OS, and several different flavours of Linux (Red Hat, Gentoo, Ubuntu), or to the difference between Falcon's Eye (now defunct) and Vulture's Eye. I don't know if that qualifies for general notability.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 05:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. consensus was a clear delete before re-list. Does not need another five days. StarM 04:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alive board

Skateboard style product, mentioned on someone's blog. Not notable. Oscarthecat (talk) 15:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, looks like product spam. JBsupreme (talk) 16:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep I cleaned the article up a bit. Notable and interesting. Should be improved with more and better references and in-line citations. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Seems like spam of product, most hits are either youtube videos of the product or advertisements themselves, however, may be unique enough to be notable. I lean towards deleting however due to a lack of independent sources indicating notability, would vote keep if these can be provided; I couldn't find any from a google search. Theseeker4 (talk) 19:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete as it doesn't have enough notable context to be what I consider encyclopaedic. To salvage the 'notable and interesting' bits one user commented on I'd remove all the spam links at the bottom (called 'sources' in the article), then merge what's left into the most appropriate of the four 'see also' articles. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 01:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sourced, yes, but not per WP:RS. Are there any third-party publications demonstrating notability? Cosmic Latte (talk) 01:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep as geographical articles are inherantly notable. If you have problems with the article, take it to the talk page first. Also this cites no relevant policy and is not formatted properly. ~the editorofthewiki ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 21:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gouillons

This page is so simple it is useless: Gouillons is a commune in the Eure-et-Loir department in north-central France.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Encyclopedia77 (talk • contribs)

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

^ ^a ^b Martin K. I. Christensen (2008-07-22). "WOMEN IN POWER: 1900-1940". Worldwide Guide to Women in Leadership. Retrieved 2008-11-17.

[WomenInPower-1] Martin K. I. Christensen (2008-07-22). "WOMEN IN POWER: 1900-1940". Worldwide Guide to Women in Leadership. Retrieved 2008-11-17.

[1]