Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 May 17

< May 16	May 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. per WP:WEB, probably an A7 speedy. Black Kite 23:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Batsu J-Rock Forum

Another non-notable fanforum. A ecis^Brievenbus 23:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A7 Absolutely no assertation of notability. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:WEB.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fails WP:V amongst many other problems, as the comments show. Black Kite 23:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of F.E.A.R. Mods

List of game mods, does not appear to be encyclopedic, lacks sources, and is of very limited interest. See WP:LC. Stifle (talk) 23:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thousands people are aware of at least 1 of the mods, and most play them. I believe they are notable. And the list of half-life mods article doesn't cite any sources either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulalex19 (talk • contribs) 23:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Believing they're notable doesn't make them meet the notability and verifiability guidelines, though. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 03:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Then what do you think will make this article more notable? As I said, many are aware of these. 24.47.112.61 (talk) 11:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note the words "notability" and "verifiability" in my statement are links. If you follow those links, they might explain to you what are the standards to get an article on this site. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 00:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Note my words "Thousands people are aware of at least 1 of the mods, and most play them." What doesn't seem notable to you might be to others. Paulalex19 (talk) 01:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - It doesn't matter how many people it's notable to, or whether or not you or I deem it notable. It has to meet the definition of "notable" according to Wikipedia:Notability, no questions asked. And right now, you still aren't showing how this topic meets that guideline. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 00:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        For one (as already stated 3 or more times) thousands of people are aware of at least 1 of these mods. Then comes the fact that other lists for video game mods get to stay. What makes a list of F.E.A.R. mods an exception? Paulalex19 (talk) 02:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Did you even read Wikipedia:Notability? It says "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." You still haven't provided evidence of such coverage, so it fails under that definition, which is the only one that matters on this site. "People knowing about it" is not significant coverage in reliable sources. The fact that other games have similar lists are not relevant to this conversation - we are talking about this list only. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 03:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 20:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Please find some sources. I am sure there are some, but you would know better than I where to look. (As for the list of Half-Life mods, I agree with you that all articles should be judged by the same standards.) 69.140.152.55 (talk) 03:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think it is high time to support some mods. Unlike games released by companies which has lot of sources they get immediate attention and mods released by fans does not get that much of the press. --SkyWalker (talk) 12:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So you're suggesting we abandon this site's policies on verifiability and notability just because these mods don't meet them? Sorry, not going to happen. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 18:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - So much for a source of information. Many things that aren't well noticed end up being somewhere (usually books, TV, internet) and eventually become notable. So having an article about mods might not only just be a source of reference, but also boost the notability. After all, other fan made mods lists for Half-life or other games get to stay. Why not F.E.A.R.'s? Paulalex19 (talk) 22:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve per Wikipedia:Lists (verifiable and notable, as well as discriminate). Article is but a few days old and has continued to develop since creation. Wikipedia:Give an article a chance and think about Wikipedia:Potential, not just current state. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in that we do not cover independent works (both full releases and modifications) unless they have been sourced in reliable secondary sources. There is FEAR modding, yes, and that should be covered to as much as the sources provided in the main FEAR article, but providing a list like this not only fails notability. This argument should be applied to any other "list of mod" or specific mod articles that cannot be shown to be notable. Again the key point: the game is modable and people have modded it, but exactly the types of mods need not be explained unless they themselves are notable. --MASEM 04:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I would support an article that acted as a central article for articles on the mods, but those mods would have to be far more notable than what is already here. Things like Defense of the Ancients orPVKII and other total conversion mods can usually make a decent case for notability (even though most mod articles are currently a mess), but a bunch of mods like this are not notable and should not be here. -- Sabre (talk) 08:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: When you say, "not notable" or "of little interest" you are speaking for yourself. You can't decide what other people may or may not find notable. What isn't notable to you might be for others. Paulalex19 (talk) 19:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please understand that when most editors talk about notability, they mean Wikipedia's definition, which requires sufficient interest to have merited coverage in secondary sources. --MASEM 23:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't meet standards for notability on wikipedia. Would probably be a magnet for spam and advertising of various mods, too. Randomran (talk) 01:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable outside of the FEAR modding community. Such a small list could easily be turned into prose and put on the main FEAR page. A separate list is unnecessary. Drewcifer (talk) 03:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm O.K. with merging. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulalex19 (talk • contribs) 18:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and numerous comments above. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 19:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note WP:PERNOM. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Been there, done that. The nominator makes a perfectly fine argument for deletion. You're welcome to disagree. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 20:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy close and redirect to Units in the City. This page listed nothing else than the song's chart positions, which are already in Shawty's discography, so I feel this is a non-controversial merge. And personally, I will trout the next person who takes a merge request to AfD. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Foolish (Shawty Lo song)

Song article unlikely to ever to grow beyond stub. Should be merged to Shawty Lo. Damiens.rf 23:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close Why don't people understand that Articles for Deletion has nothing at all to do with merging?!? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:BIO, clearly non-notable. Black Kite 23:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spencer T. Ellis

I'm inclined to think that founding a fairly new church (July 2005) and giving a weekly sermon on the Christian Television Network doesn't quite satisfy WP:BIO. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NN Google news shows only three references and those look like announcements or listings. Pburka (talk) 23:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN. -- Alexf⁴² 03:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reading the relevant articles, the "Christian Television Network" referred to is actually the single station WLPC-LP. He is [1] on Wednesdays in the 11:30 pm to midnight slot, which is definitely not prime time for Christian broadcasting. He also appears to be on WADL (TV), but our article describes that as a station running mostly paid programming... The 16 results for him when excluding wikis and blogs don't reveal any independent reliable sources. Delete GRBerry 13:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Culturalrevival (talk) 02:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Bhaktivinode (talk) 13:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Non-notable, almost strays into G11 territory. Black Kite 23:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Red Cap Vineyards

No establishment whatsoever of notability Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 23:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NN. Very few Google hits, no Google news hits at all. Welcome back once it's received some news coverage or won some awards. Pburka (talk) 00:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. -- Bduke (talk) 00:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Tagged for notability issues since its creation. I was intending to prod it myself after giving time for it to be resolved and that time has certainly come. DoubleBlue (Talk) 01:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - Merzbow (talk) 07:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - they may make delicious wine, but there are thousands of wineries in California, and only a few of them have established notoriety sufficient to warrant an article. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:RECENT, WP:NOT#NEWS, etc. Black Kite 23:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cindy (dolphin)

A good example of WP:RECENTISM. A dolphin "married" a woman, this article is about the dolphin. This was nothing more than a tabloid story and something found in the "Weird News" section. I do not see how this event is signifanct enough to be in a encyclopedia. The article about the woman was already deleted [2]. The last AFD for the article was around when this story was in news. Anyways the dolphin gets an article but not the woman? That makes no sense. Neither are notable. -- Coasttocoast (talk) 23:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLD (biographies of living dolphins). Interesting story, but it is clearly a one-shot job -- no news coverage for the happily "married" woman or her cetacean groom after their, um, marriage. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Actually, there was news coverage for the Dolphin's death as presented in the article. Englishrose (talk) 21:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article and put the bride back into her straitjacket... A ecis^Brievenbus 23:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As a NN offbeat news story. On a side note: ick. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 00:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this reject from the Weekly World News. WP:BLD1E. KleenupKrew (talk) 01:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sharon Tendler. JuJube (talk) 02:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. There are decent sources for verifiability, but ~~what if they are wrong?~~ Wikipedia is not a newspaper. 69.140.152.55 (talk) ~~17:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)~~ 05:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are defintley reliable. MSNBC, Fox News etc are reliable sources. Englishrose (talk) 21:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I don't give a toss anymore and I know the delete pragade will get their way...but this article was nominated for deletion TWICE and one was No consensus (keep)[3] and the other was a straight keep [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cindy_the_Dolphin_%282nd_nomination%29). So the delete vote based on the fact that Sharon Tendler was deleted is irrelevent (besides she was NOT notable, the Dolphin IS). The arguments in those delete vote were more meaningful than the votes presented here.

I understand this will be deleted anyway as wikipedia has changed and the delete voters pragade have become more of a force and this will result in wikipedia's downfall. This was always a borderline keep but if some of the other very notable stuff gets deleted then I have no doubt this will to, which is kind of sad in a way. But there you go. Englishrose (talk) 21:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I the article on Sharon Tendler contained the exact same information that this article has. What makes the dolphin notable and not the woman? The wedding itself is what got the headlines, not the woman or the dolphin. -- Coasttocoast (talk) 21:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then rename it to Dolphin/Human marriage or something more appropiate. More to the point this article that contained less information than it does now got kept twice. What changes? Englishrose (talk) 21:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The marriage still isn't notable. It was just a tabloid and "weird news" story, nothing else. Every day theres stories like this. What about the guy who sat on the toilet in an airplane, that made headlines should he get an article? Just watch any late night monologue and theres a lot of stories like this, non of them suitable for an encyclopedia. -- Coasttocoast (talk) 21:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This belongs in News of the Weird, not WP. "The porpoise is laughing...good-bye...good-bye" Ecoleetage (talk) 23:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Its a cute news story, but Wikipedia isn't a newspaper. It's an encyclopedia, remember? coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 19:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bagot Beast

Most of this article is a pseudo-historical document. This is source material that wouldn't belong in a Wikipedia article, if just for the fact that it's made up and original research. What remains is a barely notable art project. It is striking that the only google hit for "Bagot Beast" is this Wikipedia article. A ecis^Brievenbus 23:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Hoax? Nonsense? Maybe not speediable but damn close. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)}
Delete Even if the article is valid, it's in no way notable. TheMile (talk) 23:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --AnnaFrance (talk) 15:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I like this article! But WP:ILIKEIT is not a sufficient reason to keep. Somebody, please go and find sources. Because I haven't, I am marking this as delete. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 17:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nonsense. Corvus cornix_talk 21:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Likely a hoax. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 05:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I didn't have much luck searching either on dogpile. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirected to Half-Life 2: Episode Two. No valid reasons to keep given, but in the absence of a suitable merge page, let it go to the main article so that the history is preserved in the remote chance that an encyclopedic article could be written. Black Kite 23:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

White Forest Rocket Facility

This fictional location in a game has only 144 Google hits, remarkably few. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 22:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Good Article. Plus the google hits doesn't really matter. Trees Rock^MyGoal 02:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. (???? Above) Reminding User:Trees Rock about the "good page" gimmick, Wikipedia doesn't keep pages based on their quality. This isn't notable at all. Sure, it's from a popular game... but it's nowhere near a fictionalized city page like Liberty City (Grand Theft Auto). I think this should just be redirected to Half-Life 2: Episode Two. phøenixMøurning ( ^talk/_contribs ) 03:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What would you think if you saw an article on a White Forest Rocket Facility in The Encyclopædia Britannica? You would expect to see an article about a real rocket facility. As the White Forest facility is actually within a fictional universe, let's merge it into the article on the fictional universe itself – in this case, Half-Life 2: Episode Two, if I understand correctly. Also be sure to do a history merge (to comply with GFDL). 69.140.152.55 (talk) 17:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ actually, excluding Wikipedia, there are actually seven Google hits, none of which appear suitable as a source. Not notable. Jakew (talk) 18:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this notable article as consistent per First pillar with a specialized encyclopedia on video games, fictional locations, etc. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As this appears semi-related to the AFD for Black Mesa, I have suggested that all the Half-Life location articles be merged to Locations in the Half-Life series, as it is not necessarily the specific locations but the general use of such locations in the series that is notable. (More details on the BMesa AFD). --MASEM 22:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Can sources be found for any of the material, if it were to be merged? If so, I'll support this proposal. Jakew (talk) 22:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - People have found sources for Black Mesa Research Facility, and I found some for Ravenholm through a casual quicksearch. I don't think all of them are notable (such as this one), but I'm pretty sure that a better encyclopedic article in both quality and notability could be done if they were all merged instead of all separate. --MASEM 16:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - All right, I'll say merge regarding the content of this article provided that at least one reliable source can be found. Jakew (talk) 16:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Half-Life 2: Episode Two per WP:FICT I see no evidence that this is so abundantly notable that it warrants an independent article. (jarbarf) (talk) 22:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into a locations of Half-Life article. There's nothing independently notable here, but a far more concise version of the information, with a real-world persepective, can be stored in an article discussing the concept of Half-life locations. -- Sabre (talk) 11:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there are no primary or secondary sources, this article fails WP:V. The article is entirely comprised of a summary of a back-story from the game, and so fails WP:NOT#PLOT. There is no evidence of notability outside the game, so this topic fails WP:N. Overall, I would say there is justification for keeping or merging the content of this article.--Gavin Collins (talk) 14:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The game itself it appears in is a primary source. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I don't know. It could be the game, or the official game guide or some other source, like a fansite. No sources are cited so I guess we will never know what the source is, and whether what has been written is correct.--Gavin Collins (talk) 18:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - As indicated in the nomination, the articles does get some google hits, which means that the article can and should be inline cited, but that's a "so fix it", not a "we'll never know". The truth is out there! Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - And if you read my comment of 18:49, 18 May 2008, you'll see that there are only 7 hits, none of which are reliable sources. Jakew (talk) 19:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        What about published game guides or magazines? If it's even somewhat likely these exist, we should give the contributors the benefit of the doubt here and allow them to keep searching without having to start the article all over from scratch. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        It's impossible to prove a negative; all we can do is to make a reasonable effort to determine whether or not this topic meets our inclusion criteria. If you're prepared to delve through published game guides or magazines to find sources, then I will of course applaud your dedication. At the moment, however, the preponderance of evidence is such that the topic isn't notable, so the right thing to do is to delete the article. Please bear in mind that, per WP:BURDEN, sources should really have been added at the time of creation. If evidence later emerges that the subject is notable, then the article can be restored or rewritten through the usual processes. In any event, there are strong indications that the article is original research based upon primary sources, and would probably need to be completely rewritten if sources did emerge. Jakew (talk) 20:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        "it's up to the delete voters to prove it isn't notable". Ideally sources should be added when an article is created, however, many good articles started out as unreferenced stubs and in some cases sources were not added until months, maybe even years later. We do not have a deadline. I am not, by the way, opposed to a merge and redirect without deletion in the interim with no prejudice to unredirect as additional sources are made available. I just see no real gain here in outright deletion. Regards, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        LGRdC, that's a single off-hand comment made by someone in closing an AfD. It's not WP policy, and since negative proof is a logical impossibility, it is unreasonable to expect anyone to prove that something isn't notable. All that can reasonably be expected is evidence of failure to prove notability. And that's not quite the same thing. Jakew (talk) 21:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a low number of Google hits is not a valid reason for deletion, see Wikipedia:ATA#Google test. Wikipedia is not paper. Using Half-Life 2 and its episodes as primary sources, one can write an article on this subject that's verifiable, neutral, and that contains no original research. Half-Life 2 is a notable game. This could at least be merged into a list of locations per the editing policy. --Pixelface (talk) 22:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just out of interest, how would you propose to meet these requirements using primary sources alone? "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." — WP:V "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources." — WP:NOR Jakew (talk) 23:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. Pixelface (talk) 22:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, merge nothing, as there's no content worth keeping. User:Krator (t c) 23:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per ongoing consensus that pure in-game material with no secondary sources and no assertion of real-world notability is not appropriate content for Wikipedia. --Stormie (talk) 23:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Additional sources have been found during the AfD and there was no consensus for deletion. However, there are still significant unsourced claims and inline cites are needed to avoid a further challenge, at least to some of the content. TerriersFan (talk) 02:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

American Specialty Cars

No notability, nearly pure original research and promotion; most text lifted from company's own promotional website —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 23:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The company seems significant enough to merit an article, though parts of it likely need to be deleted or rewritten. IFCAR (talk) 17:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The company is well known and significant among the custom car industry; if the article is broken, somebody ought to fix it instead of abolishing it. Gzuckier (talk) 17:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up as necessary. Company is covered significantly in reliable sources such as here and here establishing notability, there is further sources available in a google news search here. AFD is not for cleanup and can be rewritten as necessary. Davewild (talk) 17:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ~~Regardless of the outcome of this AfD, the article currently has major copyvio problems that need instant attention.~~ See here (the list of cars has identical text). --Jaysweet (talk) 19:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind, I took care of it myself. Shame someone had gone to the trouble of wikifying a lot of that text already... oh well. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Scheinwerfermann --Plasma Twa 2 22:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article may need fleshing out, but the company is significant enough to warrant its own article. SimonX (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 04:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. EdJohnston (talk) 03:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel Al-Amin

This person appears to be a fabrication, a hoax, or at the least an inflated reputation/personal bio. There has only ever been one article published by them, which was reprinted in several less than noteworthy publications. There is no information anywhere available on the person themself, nor any evidence that they have ever written anything else, on any subject. Appears to just be one single-purpose editor maintaining and pushing for keeping the article. ← George^[talk] 22:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be a fabrication of sorts, akin to Google bombing. Many blogs and forums have the exact same copy-and-pasted message pointing to a single article by this otherwise unknown author, published on a non-neutral political site. It would appear that one person (possibly the author themself) is trying to build up this persona by linking to it from all sorts of various places. This author appears to have zero noteworthiness outside of this single article, and none of the personal claims in the Wikipedia entry can be verified (which leads me to suspect this is a personal bio). ← George^[talk] 22:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, although I have some problems using arabic script on my computer, an arabic google search gives no non-wiki results. --Soman (talk) 16:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Semitism and Racism Towards Israel on Wikipedia

Please don't delete Gabriel Al-Amin's secion. The fact that you guys remove Gabriel Al Amin section 3 times a day proves that you guys are biased towards one side. I am sure if someone, whom we will call "Person A," actually invented a fabricated character, whom we will call "Person B", and "Person A" would say that "Person B" is a famous columnist who published an article that Israel failed miserably in the Lebanon War, and that Israel is an evil occupier oppressor, I am sure you guys would not care about getting proof of "Person B's" existence as much as you guys would care about proof of the existence of Al Amin! But when someone like Al Amin, who does not share a 100% bashing Israel perspective (as much as you guys are), then you guys go bazerk and look for any excuse to have him taken down and hush him up. Even if "Person B" would not have even ever been published in even one newspaper you guys would probably let his section stay. But Al Amin has been published in 6 different newspapers. I found this too: http://arabdesk.co.il/ArticleView.aspx?id=99 I am not even Jewish, I am actually a Greek Orthodox, but i believe the section of Al Amin needs to be heard, since like i said again there are a lot of people in Lebanon that would agree with him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicholausz (talk • contribs) 15:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A question about this was asked 7 months ago and apparently nobody has heard of him. http://nz.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070926034927AAbIdEd

UsedID:Nicholausz has a similar IP address to LebanonWire.com, the source of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.44.200.163 (talk) 16:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"But Al Amin has been published in 6 different newspapers." All of which are obscure Israeli or US web sites and of the same article. That hardly makes 'him' a balanced authority of the Lebanese position, especially given the complex nature of Lebanese opinion. For someone who claims such an esteemed education (Oxford) and a public speaking record you would expect a better understanding of the English language as well as some record of activity outside Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.44.200.163 (talk) 16:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Anti-Semitism on Wikipedia... please don't delete" Yeah, and please don't throw Brer Rabbit in the briar patch either. Skip the reverse psychology crap. If you want it deleted, just say so, rather than trying to make it look as if people who want this kept are trying to play a race-card of some sort. Mandsford (talk) 17:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with anti-Semitism, and to brand it such does a huge disservice to all those who have been truly impacted by real anti-Semitism, so I'll thank the anonymous author (who I assume is the same person maintaining the article) to leave such inflammatory accusations at the door. This is Wikipedia, and for things to be included on Wikipedia, they have to meet a minimum bar of notability and verifiability. This article does not, and being more vocal in your support, throwing around false accusations, and going against policy and procedure (such as deleting the {{prod}} tag, or violating 3RR) do not change that. ← George^[talk] 17:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's also great that he accused all the editors removing that section from the Lebanon War article - "you guys are biased towards one side" (against Israel). I'm more used to being accused of being pro-Israel, not anti-Israel... I take that as a sign I'm doing okay. okedem (talk) 18:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think this debate is in need of some clarity. Of the eight sources on this version of the page about Mr. Al-Amin, four are copies of material written by him, one is a self-reference, one is a link to a Yahoo! Answers discussion, one does not make clear its connection to Mr. Amin and one is a reliable, third-party source. Please provide more of the latter. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 05:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which do you consider to be a reliable, third-party source? I didn't really find any of the references sufficient. ← George^[talk] 06:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral: The hnn.us blog seems to be a reliable source, as the blogger is apparently a noted expert in the field, but more sources are needed. Also, I disagree with those who say that the subject is a hoax. And the topic is more important than much that is found on Wikipedia. That having been said, the fact that the article uses the self-published sources as a primary means for verification is a major weakness. On balance, I would say there are satisfactory arguments both for and against deletion. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 08:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give you that it's not as bad as the other sources, but I still find it problematic. First, obviously, it's a blog, so this blog entry won't have any editorial oversight (so no fact or source checking). Second, the blog entry isn't about Gabriel Al-Amin, it just references him with a link to the same, single article (broken link by the way) when talking about the war. Third, I'm not sure the author is "a noted expert in the field". She doesn't have a Wikipedia article, which makes me wonder about her notability, but at least her bio states that she's been a professor at a couple universities in Israel and one in Denmark, and written a couple books, so she could be. I wouldn't say that Gabriel Al-Amin is a hoax per se, but given the lack of anything confirming the existence of this person, I would say it is more likely either (a) a pseudonym used by someone else, whose motives, qualifications, and affiliations are completely unknown, or (b) a person named Gabriel Al-Amin, who really did write an article that by chance got picked up by a news wire and republished in several minor newspapers, but who still lacks the noteworthiness required of a Wikipedia article. ← George^[talk] 09:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please don't remove the Gabriel Al Amin section, if you guys want to remove it because it lacks reliable credibility, well i am sure that there were some entries on Wikipedia that had a million times less credibility than Al Amin and they got to stay. But I doubt Al Amin is a made up character because his article was published in 6 different places. So please let it stay. This is Wikipedia, not Encarata or Britanica. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicholausz (talk • contribs) 18:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is Wikipedia, not MySpace. See WP:OTHERCRAP for some guidance. --Soman (talk) 18:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete for failing WP:BIO and WP:RS--and, if he really is a writer, then for failing WP:BK as well. Qworty (talk) 04:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete, likely a hoax. --Soman (talk) 05:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom of George^[talk]. IRK!_{Leave me a note or two} 16:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There is no evidence of anti-semitism on Wikipedia. Lay off it. Bearian (talk) 18:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Appears to meet various parts of WP:MUSIC. Black Kite 23:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merzedes Club

per WP:Music — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bambinn (talk • contribs)

Keep - notable for Iceland's most expensive music video sponsored by Siminn, its participant in the national selection for Iceland in the Eurovision Song Contest 2008, It's Keymember being Gillzenegger, a popular character in iceland^[1], and the music made by Barði Jóhannsson, Member of such bands as Bang Gang; Lady and Bird; Haxan; and has released many best selling albums in Iceland and France. Merzedes Club are Arguably one of the biggest hits in Iceland. bambinn (talk) 18:57, 18 Mai 2008 (GMT)
Comment User:Bambinn created this AfD with "per WP:MUSIC" and then added a "keep" !vote. I'm confused. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wait. Turns out User:Scott5114 placed a prod on the article, and Bambinn is apparently contesting the prod. I'll leave this open just in case. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:Music in more than one criteria. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

References

^ Gillz.is

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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:MUSIC Black Kite 23:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gangsta P

Two articles, one about a rapper and the other about his single album, but there is no indication that the artist meets Wikipedia:MUSIC#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles. The article about the artist was tagged for speedy deletion by another editor but this was declined on the basis that the article about the album also existed. As both articles were created by the same editor at the same time I fail to see the logic in that argument and have brought this to this wider audience instead. Ros0709 (talk) 22:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Related album article also nominated is:

Delete both per nom, fails WP:MUSIC. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources to prove notability. Edison (talk) 05:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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; fails WP:BIO and WP:V covered by WP:RS. Tyranny of dissolving liberties being all well and good, Wikipedia isn't the place. PeterSymonds (talk) 11:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Tsarion

With reference to the recent nomination of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Schnoebelen and its delete outcome, I find it relevant to consider the Tsarion article again as I believe these too figures pretty much are comparable when it comes to meeting Wikipedia's WP:BIO notability criteria. To be specific I find that the one-sided sourcing from web sites connected with Tsarion or sources that would otherwise not qualify as reliable sources makes this article a candidate for this nomination. __meco (talk) 21:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If this is deleted you have succumbed to the tyranny of dissolving Liberties — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.135.123 (talk) 04:15, May 19, 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Self-published "author" without much WP:RS going for him. Most of the sources are blogs and such, and the few legitimate sources, unfortunately, are not about him. So WP notability standards are not being met here. Qworty (talk) 04:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N and doesn't have any WP:RS and per Qworty. Razor flame 21:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete I've heard of the guy before but that's not enough. Doesn't meet WP:BIO, so delete. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:33, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 This sucker needs to be closed and no consensus is the way the way to go, as unsatisfactory as that is. Hey! we live in an imperfect world get used to it. (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 20:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Azalin Rex

This appears to be a nonnotable game character with no independent coverage. It has been tagged for notability for about six months, so this nomination should not come as a surprise. Graevemoore (talk) 20:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Horribly written abot a non-notable charachter. I'm an Editor of the wiki^{[citation needed]} 20:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable character in its own right, delete and possibly redirect to Ravenloft. Cirt (talk) 22:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable fictional character which has no received significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. Google turned up nothing useful in the first few pages of hits, which indicates such sources do not exist. Additionally, there is no encyclopedic content to merge anywhere since the entire article is plot summary. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 08:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, too much plot and too little encyclopedic content and actual sources. Stifle (talk) 19:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per plenty of references and consistent per First pillar with a specialized encyclopedia on D&D for which there are many published volumes. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article has been tagged for lack of citations, the in-universe style of writing, and now for lack of notability. Also, nobody seems to be working on it anymore, and I'd hate to bloat the Ravenloft article with all this questionable material on one character. --AnnaFrance (talk) 15:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well put - Delete Eusebeus (talk) 19:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect to Ravenloft. Significant Ravenloft character; although reliable sources may be difficult to find, lack of citations and in-universe style are cleanup issues and not reasons for deletion. BOZ (talk) 15:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; no independent references so it fails WP:N and should be deleted Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The article has quite a bit of references and I suspect a good search through published sources could turn up more. No real reason to delete. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Le Grand & BOZ.--Robbstrd (talk) 20:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but the article is excessively long and detailed for a general encyclopedia. Problem for editing, not for AfD. "in universe style of writing" is a reason for editing. and so are the other problems. let's be realistic--the question here is not the compliance with the standards that can be interpreted in various ways, depending on the desired result. The actual question is the desired coverage of fictional topics such as this in Wikipedia. People decide on the basis of what they want, and then work up the detailed argument--or the proper catch words if they dont want to actually argue the matter. I could spend the next hour or two, or the next minute or two listing all the general policies that may or may not apply, per others--and do this in either direction. I've done enough of this before, and I'm tired of it. The reason for keeping expansive coverage of fiction is that we want expansive coverage of fiction. the material is V, so we can write the article. We set the guidelines according to what we want. For those who do not want full coverage of fiction, and think we should be a directory type list of publication information in that area--then they will want to delete. DGG (talk) 04:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Editing issues with an article aren't a reason for deletion.Shemeska (talk) 17:53, 17 May 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 21:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Tagged as not notable, in-universe, lacks reliable sources, and in-text citations (this is a biggie). The notability and citation tags were put on back in November and it seems nothing was done to fix the article. -XxKibaxX Talk 22:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, It has only 430 Google hits, none on Google News, Books nor Scholar. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 23:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That number is rather misleading. Try doing a search for just Azalin, not "Azalin Rex". The former is more common while the latter was a formal title for the character, but rarely used by comparison. That returns around 57000 hits.Shemeska (talk) 14:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The quantity is irrelevant; what matters is the nature of those hits. Going through them, I simply don't see something that is reliable, independent, and contains substantial coverage. Now, I most certainly can't say that such coverage doesn't exist, as that would be proving nonexistence, absent any axiomatic constraints, which isn't really possible. I am relatively certain that it's not there, and the burden of proof rests on those that want the article to remain. Graevemoore (talk) 17:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 430 is an impressive number and suggests some degree of popularity/notability, but remember sources don't stop at Google. Have you also tried game magazines? Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - - I did a search on just Azalin, it brings the number up to 881. However, azalin is also the name of a photographic chemical, a kind of tree, an anime character (Azalin-chan), and some real people. The Azalin we are debating here had no Google news or scholar hits, and two books published by Wizards of the Coast. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 17:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Stop right there. Popularity doesn't equal notability. Please don't conflate the two. Trying to do so ignores the reasons why we have notability in the first place. Graevemoore (talk) 02:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Some things are indeed both popular and notable. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, and some things can be red and cubical, but there isn't a direct relation between being red and being cubical. Just like popularity doesn't directly make something notable. Graevemoore (talk) 18:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        In this case, however, Azalin Rex is both popular and notable for a paperless online encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        The assertion of notability has yet to be backed up by actual fact. Graevemoore (talk) 19:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        These suggest notability, i.e. a character with multiple appearancs in a major franchise, and perhaps a search for reviews of those books can turn up additional out of universe information, commentary on the characters. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Not at all. Licensed and first party sources have no bearing on notability. Graevemoore (talk) 00:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Can you fin sales figures of these reliable sources or reviews? Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't think sales figures constitute substantial coverage. WP:FICT is just a proposal, and therefore sales figures must stand on their own, rather than receiving de jure status as significant coverage. Graevemoore (talk) 18:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per XxKibaxX. Jakew (talk) 18:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Before you get criticized for that sentiment, I'd like to point out that WP:CONSENSUS states that "Consensus develops from agreement of the parties involved.", so mentioning your agreement with others' opinions is, in fact, a useful part of creating consensus. Thanks for participating. Graevemoore (talk) 18:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - At the same time it is not a mere vote. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Zero assertion of notability through reliable sources. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yet, the article does assert notability through reliable sources. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Le Roi..Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep needs references, but this is a notable character from multiple published sources, which have been reviewed and referenced in third-party sources. These references exist, they just need to be added to the article. Should not be deleted; should be edited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThirdLevelRanger (talk • contribs) 08:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this extensive in universe plot summary fails WP:NOT#PLOT and there are no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate WP:N outside of the game.--Gavin Collins (talk) 14:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The nominator of this AfD has just been blocked as a ban evading sockpuppet of arbitration committe banned editor Eyrian. As I do not think it appropriate that we should humor banned editors, I recommend either speedy closing this AfD or at least striking his comments. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't possibly agree more, and his other contributions should be checked as well to minimize the damage. BOZ (talk) 18:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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:MUSIC and WP:V. PeterSymonds (talk) 13:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only Through the Pain

WP:CRYSTAL, no sources to verify the album. The E-card is apparently a primary source. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:CRYSTAL. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Do Not Delete, Pen. I didn't write the article, but why couldn't the e-card be a source? The e-card came directly from the band, and if the band can't be a primary source of information about their own album, then the world's gone nuts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.189.92.74 (talk) 18:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N and WP:MUSIC because of the fact that future albums are not notable. Also fails WP:CRYSTAL as stated above by Esradekan. Razor flame 21:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Singu larity 21:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ugliness

Nothing but a dictionary definition. A merge to Physical attractiveness has been proposed, but there's no discussion area on Talk:Physical attractiveness and there's nothing to merge anyway. Powers ^T 20:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A clear case of WP:DICTDEF. Nsk92 (talk) 21:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete dicdef. JuJube (talk) 02:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and redirect to Physical attractiveness. Even if there's nothing to merge, a redirect can still be created. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If Umberto Eco can write a book on ugliness described as of "encyclopedic breadth"[4] the article should probably be expanded not deleted. Being a stub is not a justified reason for deletion imo. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 15:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In general, I don't think that we should redirect to antonyms. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 05:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sources were identified during the AFD that has produced a firm consensus amongst editors that the book meets notability requirements. (Non-admin close.) Smile a While (talk) 01:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Gas We Pass

Seems non-notable, unsourced Ziggy Saw dust 20:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources. The author and the publisher don't have pages. The author seems non-notable as well, as I can find no reliable sources (altho' that name sounds familiar). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nsk92's sources. (Will someone please make a page on the author though?) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability is not temporary, and it was speedily kept last time. At least one source was given in that discussion. Powers ^T 20:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That lone source is only trivial coverage. Otherwise I'm finding close to bupkis. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is a reasonable amount of nontrivial news coverage: Wasington Post[5], Publishers Weekly[6], Wisconsin State Journal[7], Fort Worth Star-Telegram [8], the New Yorker [9] (here the book is referred to as follows:"There is a series of Japanese children's books about the bodily functions that children tend to become preoccupied with; the most famous volumes in the series--"Everyone Poops" and "The Gas We Pass: The Story of Farts"--got that way because adults buy them as gag presents for other adults"), what looks like a review here[10]. GoogleBooks gives 12 hits[11], including this[12]. Even GoogleScholar shows some 6 hits for mentions of the book in scholarly articles [13]. My feeling is that there is enough here to justify notability. Nsk92 (talk) 21:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the link to the JAWP article for the author. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Nsk92's sources demonstrated notability within WP:BK's bounds. I note that we have a hella lot of redlinks for notable Japanese authors and artists -- determining notability of a work based on an article for the author not existing is dubious at best. —Quasirandom (talk) 01:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep good article Trees Rock^MyGoal 02:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Apparently sources were not added to the article after the last AfD, but they definitely exist, such as this one from the New York Times. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nsk92's sources. Jakew (talk) 18:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. IAR; the subject of the book is notable, but what is the book itself doing in here? 69.140.152.55 (talk) 22:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's doing here because multiple reviewers have noted it, which is the wiki-definition of notability. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to compile existing knowledge of all kinds. —Quasirandom (talk) 23:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No valid arguments to delete, notability has been demostrated. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 15:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the evidence is sufficient. particularly the material from the NYTimes. DGG (talk) 22:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted as a hoax. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 19:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew dwyer

This article was originally at Andrew Dwyer, which I deleted (CSD G3/G11/A7) and salted because it appeared to be astroturfing, spamming, and/or hoaxing by a group of individuals with no other edits to the encyclopedia. It reappeared here not too long thereafter. Ultimately, I am convinced that the article is not a hoax, per se, and a discussion of its merits is in order. It looks like merely a WP:COI article about an individual who does not appear notable from reliable sources. Most, if not all, of the supposed references provided are not legitimate sources, in that they are profiles, broken links, passing mentions, etc. I also find it highly suspicious that this article in all its incarnations has been edited only by accounts with no other contributions to the encyclopedia as well (viz. the deleted history of the original article). The key issue here is the notability, though, and I don't believe it can be satisfactorily fleshed out and sourced, and recommend its deletion. NOTE: The listing of DVS Group (or DVS Facilities, I'm not sure what the company actually calls itself, since it differs) on the Council of Foreign Relations website as a corporate partner may make the company notable to some extent (even though no other sources can verify this, or even the existence of the company), but does not automatically transfer notability to its key individuals. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. There are two problems here. The first one is verifiablity: a great deal of biographical data given is unsourced and at the moment appears unverifiable. Perhaps this could be fixed in time but there is a problem with WP:V now. The larger issue is notability. None of the references listed are directly cited in the article and most of them do not qualify as independent third-party reliable sources with ontrivial coverage as required by WP:BIO. A few sources are OK such as this[14] and this[15], but they contain only very brief and cursory mentions of him. I tried some google searching, but with a common name like this it is hard to do filtering and I did not really find anything of substance. A google news search for "Andrew Dwyer" DVS gives 1 hit[16], but the link there is broken. Not enough here to pass WP:BIO or WP:N. Unless more independent third-party reliable sources are found (either in large number or a few with in-depth coverage), the article would have to be deleted. Nsk92 (talk) 22:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This cache link[17] will help you out, Nsk92. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I had a good look through the references. As Kinu says, the sources are very poor, broken links or passing mentions. There is no evidence that DVS Group, the janitorial company, is in anyway 'worldwide' or notable but there is evidence that DVS Group was founded in 2006 with share capital of $100[18]. There is evidence that iCLEAN has only existed for one month[19]; that Dwyers' education was at Ashford University[20] rather than LSE, OU and Cornell University; that he was born in 1984 not 1977[21]. There is evidence that he had political ambitions and also evidence that his candidature for political office was curtailed as he was ineligible for reasons that are <cough> not quoted in the article[22]. Google searches (see the article talk page) throws up very little and nothing of use. This article fails WP:RS, WP:V and WP:N and while Andrew Dwyer and his DVS Group appear to exist, the rest unverifiable and some is seemingly wrong. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, this editor continues to spam Wikipedia with unverifiable information, has twice removed the AfD tag, and has blanked this page. They were blocked once, but unblocked to be given a second chance, which they continue to abuse. Corvus cornix_talk 01:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Followup: Andrew Dwyer is a disabled United States Air Force Veteran, a recipient of the National Defense Service Medal and the Congressional Order of Merit, and the President of DVS Group nationwide. Cough. Corvus cornix_talk 01:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Followup to the followup: He said he was employed as an air traffic controller in Alaska for three years after leaving the Air Force. Yet, at the time of the article, Mr. Dwyer's age was given as 24. The charges against him were filed in 2005, which would have made him 22 at the time. He left the Air Force when he was 19? Unless things have changed, the last time I looked, an Air Force term was 4 years, and you had to be at least 17 to join, and only then with parental approval. Corvus cornix_talk 02:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I strongly believe that User:Internet1807 (the author of the original version of this article, whom I blocked and is mentioned by Corvus cornix as blanking and removing related content) and User:Troythomas (the author of the current version of this article) are related, and possibly even sockpuppets or meatpuppets of one another. --Kinu ^t/_c 02:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete , Person doesn't appear that notable at 1 Google hit only? Might be a work of a spammer. Artene50 (talk) 00:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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:MUSIC. Black Kite 23:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zad

Non-notable band. No references in article; all I've found so far on the web is their MySpace page. Not eligible for speedy, as the article contains an assertion of notability. Powers ^T 20:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by Golbez (G3: Vandalism). Non-admin closure. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 08:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James J. "The Gent" Ryan

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/James J. "The Gent" Ryan

I tagged this article as a possible hoax a few days ago and I am almost completely sure now that it is a hoax. Captain panda 20:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a hoax. No references anywhere. One of the supposed "leaders of the gang" listed in the article is actually U.S. rep. William S. Vare. Nsk92 (talk) 20:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
G3 Gang led by a U.S. rep? Yeah, that's a hoax. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hoax. "James J. The Gent Ryan" (words in that sequence) gets ZERO ghits except this page. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoaxalicious. JuJube (talk) 02:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. weburiedoursecrets inthegarden 21:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Gift (Ryan Shupe & The RubberBand album)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/The Gift (Ryan Shupe & The RubberBand album)

I really like Ryan Shupe & The RubberBand (Dream Big was soooo under-rated), but there's very little info on this album anywhere. No third party reviews or other coverage, and the album was apparently self-released. (At least their other albums all have reviews on All Music Guide, otherwise I might ask to delete those too.) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So what works as verifiable third party references. You've already shot down my Last Man Standing page (that was cited with about 5 sources, and I can back it up with more cites now). Why is the artist's own page with discography not considered legit? Would a retailer selling the CD be enough? It obviously exists (why would I make it up), so you (being the great "genius" that you are) enlighten me on what I have to cite for it to be fixed or legit or whatever it has to be.User:RobDMB • 20:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You need multiple reliable third-party sources. News articles about the album, professional reviews, et cetera. That kind of thing. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TerriersFan (talk) 19:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is an All Music Guide link in the article, but it only lists the track listing. It doesn't even have the cover art. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To Ten Pound Hammer, how about instead of going through everything I post and deleting it, you actually try to help me out? I am OBVIOUSLY new at this and all you're doing is being rude. How about instead of deleting it, add something to it. I don't know too much about this site other than what I've posted and that people supposedly add things to these articles. You're completely turning me off to this whole thing. There are hundreds of dicographies on this site from bands ranging from tiny to huge, and I thought it was apporpriate to post these articles (I speak of both this article and the Last Man Standing album article), in order to flesh out the band's complete discography. All Music Guide is not the only credible source in the world; and why does the citation have to have a rating? That doesn't make any sense to me. There's not even a reliable way for me to actually have a conversation with you. I am seriously unhappy about the way you are treating my posts, and I guess I can't really do anything. Thanks for nothing and I hope that you and your elitist attitude find something real to do besides police an open source website. User:RobDMB 22:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Hero Status

Student band which fails WP:MUSIC; only reference is to student-run website reporting that the band came second in a battle of the bands contest. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Keep. When I saw the reference to the article at The Yorker, I assumed that it was a newspaper. Having reviewed the site's self-description at http://www.theyorker.co.uk/about/ , I consider that it is a reliable source on the same level as a newspaper, and that the coverage by The Yorker qualifies as substantial coverage by a reliable source. I would not have kept the article without that reference, though. --Eastmain (talk) 18:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC) Forgettable band, even though it has substantial coverage by a reliable source. --Eastmain (talk) 05:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:MUSIC and I do not regard The Yorker as a reliable source - I see no evidence that this website has an established reputation for fact checking and accuracy. TerriersFan (talk) 19:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. --Dhartung | Talk 19:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:Music, The Yorker appears to be little more than a college newspaper. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 19:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless notability can be shown through a substantially more worthy source than The Yorker... Ryanniemi (talk) 21:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As above. Nouse4aname (talk) 19:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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:MUSIC. Black Kite 23:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beauville (Gob song)

per WP:Music

Most songs do not merit an article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for a prominent album or for the artist who wrote or prominently performed the song. Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. A separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 01:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep By a very notable artist, legotech probally hasn't even read WP:Music [The Spooky One] | ^{[t c r]} 04:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC). [LukeTheSpook] | ^{[t c r]} 17:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The nomination is a direct quote from WP:Music. I did not nominate the songs that had a reason to be notable. Luke is upset that his articles about his band do not qualify for WP and has decided to blame me for that. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 02:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TerriersFan (talk) 18:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources to prove notability. Fails WP:MUSIC as well. Edison (talk) 05:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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:MUSIC. Black Kite 23:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What To Do (Gob song)

per WP:Music

Most songs do not merit an article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for a prominent album or for the artist who wrote or prominently performed the song. Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. A separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 01:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep By a very notable artist, legotech probally hasn't even read WP:Music [The Spooky One] | ^{[t c r]} 04:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Merge into How Far Shallow Takes You (however that's up for AfD too, but will likely be kept because it was released on a notable record label by a notable band). Does the nominator have a point or something in these several Gob related AfDs? Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 20:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be careful about accusing anyone of disrupting WP to make a point. The "point" of all of these was that the author was WP:OWNing the articles and the prod was contested and any merge or redirect would have been reverted by the fan. So, I was not trying to disrupt anything, but deal with things that should be gone in the approved manner. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 21:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but nomming several items very similar to each other makes it seem like you had some sort of vendetta. ~~That isn't the case according to your post, which is a good thing.~~ Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 07:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: It DOES seem to be the case. You appear to have not grasped the idea of WP:MUSIC. The single is by a notable band and issued on Nettwerk Records, a notable independent record label. Which meets two critereon of WP:MUSIC. You don't have to meet every single criterion of WP:MUSIC for something to be notable. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 15:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So this bit doesn't matter for songs, just everything else in WP? "A separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album" LegoTech·(t)·(c) 02:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, a merge into How Far Shallow Takes You (now that it's been kept) would be reasonable. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 15:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TerriersFan (talk) 18:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources to prove notability. Fails WP:MUSIC as well. Edison (talk) 05:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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:MUSIC. Black Kite 23:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I Hear You Calling (song)

per WP:Music

Most songs do not merit an article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for a prominent album or for the artist who wrote or prominently performed the song. Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. A separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 01:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep One of GOB's most notable songs. I don't think LegoTech has even read WP:Music.... [The Spooky One] | ^{[t c r]} 04:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The nomination is a direct quote from WP:Music. I did not nominate the songs that had a reason to be notable. Luke is upset that his articles about his band do not qualify for WP and has decided to blame me for that. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 02:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TerriersFan (talk) 18:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable per WP:MUSIC for its inclusion in the Molson Canadian commercials. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete No reliable sources to prove notability. Fails WP:MUSIC as well. The claim of being in a major advertising campaign suggests that surces might exist if someone bothered to search for them. Edison (talk) 05:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:MUSIC. I don't see how it fails WP:MUSIC as the nominator stated.-- Ryan Cross (talk) 18:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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:MUSIC. Black Kite 23:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No Regrets (Gob song)

per WP:Music

Most songs do not merit an article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for a prominent album or for the artist who wrote or prominently performed the song. Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. A separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 01:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Notable enough. I don't think LegoTech has even read WP:Music.... [The Spooky One] | ^{[t c r]} 04:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The nomination is a direct quote from WP:Music. I did not nominate the songs that had a reason to be notable. Luke is upset that his articles about his band do not qualify for WP and has decided to blame me for that. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 02:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TerriersFan (talk) 18:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources to prove notability. Fails WP:MUSIC as well. Edison (talk) 05:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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:MUSIC. Black Kite 23:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Give Up the Grudge

per WP:Music

Most songs do not merit an article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for a prominent album or for the artist who wrote or prominently performed the song. Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. A separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 01:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep It's GOB's Most notable song and has had plenty of outside coverage. Please read WP:Music before tagging irrelevant things with AFDs, like you have with pretty much every article relating to GOB. [The Spooky One] | ^{[t c r]} 04:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Super Speedy Keep This is one of the most popular and most notable songs from GOB. Also considering the trend from the nominator for nominatin GOB-only articles to AFD with none from others, I could almost call this a bad faith nomination or at least suspicous nomination.--JForget 00:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I find another band that has every single listed with nothing more than the song title and a description of the music video, I'll happily take those to AfD as well. If you think there is WP:RS out there, how about fixing the article instead of accusing me of bad faith anything? LegoTech·(t)·(c) 02:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TerriersFan (talk) 18:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources to prove notability. Fails WP:MUSIC as well. Edison (talk) 05:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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:MUSIC. Black Kite 23:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! Ellin

per WP:Music

Most songs do not merit an article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for a prominent album or for the artist who wrote or prominently performed the song. Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. A separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 01:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Notable enough. I don't think LegoTech has even read WP:Music.... [The Spooky One] | ^{[t c r]} 04:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The nomination is a direct quote from WP:Music. I did not nominate the songs that had a reason to be notable. Luke is upset that his articles about his band do not qualify for WP (several were already deleted or redirected by AfD) and has decided to blame me for that. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 02:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TerriersFan (talk) 18:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable per WP:MUSIC for its inclusion in the video game NHL 2004. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources to prove notability. Fails WP:MUSIC as well. There is no inherent notability for being included in some video game. Edison (talk) 05:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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:MUSIC. Black Kite 23:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Break (Gob Song)

per WP:Music

Most songs do not merit an article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for a prominent album or for the artist who wrote or prominently performed the song. Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. A separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 01:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge To album. [LukeTheSpook] | ^{[t c r]} 17:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TerriersFan (talk) 18:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources to prove notability. Fails WP:MUSIC as well. Edison (talk) 05:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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:MUSIC. Black Kite 23:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Soda (Gob song)

per WP:Music

Most songs do not merit an article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for a prominent album or for the artist who wrote or prominently performed the song. Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. A separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 02:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. NN, but wouldn't complain about a redirect. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Notable enough. I don't think LegoTech has even read WP:Music.... [The Spooky One] | ^{[t c r]} 04:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The nomination is a direct quote from WP:Music. I did not nominate the songs that had a reason to be notable. Luke is upset that his articles about his band do not qualify for WP and has decided to blame me for that. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 02:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TerriersFan (talk) 18:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources to prove notability. Fails WP:MUSIC as well. Edison (talk) 05:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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:MUSIC. Black Kite 23:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Underground (Gob song)

per WP:Music

Most songs do not merit an article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for a prominent album or for the artist who wrote or prominently performed the song. Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. A separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 02:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Notable enough. I don't think LegoTech has even read WP:Music.... [The Spooky One] | ^{[t c r]} 04:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC) [LukeTheSpook] | ^{[t c r]} 17:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The nomination is a direct quote from WP:Music. I did not nominate the songs that had a reason to be notable. Luke is upset that his articles about his band do not qualify for WP (several were already deleted or redirected by AfD) and has decided to blame me for that. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 02:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TerriersFan (talk) 18:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources to prove notability. Fails WP:MUSIC as well. Edison (talk) 05:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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:MUSIC. Black Kite 23:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Day (Gob song)

per WP:Music

Most songs do not merit an article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for a prominent album or for the artist who wrote or prominently performed the song. Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. A separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 02:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Notable enough. I don't think LegoTech has even read WP:Music.... [The Spooky One] | ^{[t c r]} 04:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC) r] 17:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The nomination is a direct quote from WP:Music. I did not nominate the songs that had a reason to be notable. Luke is upset that his articles about his band do not qualify for WP and has decided to blame me for that. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 02:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TerriersFan (talk) 18:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources to prove notability. Fails WP:MUSIC as well. Edison (talk) 05:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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:MUSIC. Black Kite 23:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For The Moment

per WP:Music

Most songs do not merit an article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for a prominent album or for the artist who wrote or prominently performed the song. Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. A separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 02:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Notable enough. I don't think LegoTech has even read WP:Music.... [The Spooky One] | ^{[t c r]} 04:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The nomination is a direct quote from WP:Music. I did not nominate the songs that had a reason to be notable. Luke is upset that his articles about his band do not qualify for WP and has decided to blame me for that. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 02:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TerriersFan (talk) 18:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. and WP:MUSIC. JohnCD (talk) 19:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources to prove notability. Fails WP:MUSIC as well. Edison (talk) 05:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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:MUSIC. Unfortunately no one has stepped in to save this article. PeterSymonds (talk) 13:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perunika

Non-notable a cappella group. Fails WP:MUSIC, as Yahoo reveals only one non-trivial story--this one from the San Diego Union-Tribune. I was in two minds as to whether to hit the AfD button, but the fact that the creator is Perunika (talk · contribs) clinched it. Blueboy 96 18:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, clearly promotional G11 material; creator was blocked for promotional use of a promotional username. Daniel Case (talk) 18:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Waffling I tagged this for speedy before the references were added -- funny how people don't add references until after something gets tagged -- and I agree with the obvious COI, but I think it's borderline notable at this point with the capsule reviews in major media and an AMG listing. Could possibly be saved. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:MUSIC & WP:COI. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete, A7 (no assertion of notability). Blueboy 96 18:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My home

Contested PROD. This is not notable. End of story. Delete. JohnCD (talk) 18:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't delete. Wikipedia isn't just for Americans, a lot of people in Britain use wikipedia too. Just because some people haven't heard of it doesn't mean that it isn't notable. For example, some people haven't heard of Europium, but nobody deletes that article! Why are people anti-British? :-( Rich 18:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rich nffc (talk • contribs)

Also I put a lot of hard work into making this article! It took me a very long time to get the correct grid reference Rich 18:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rich nffc (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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 author request. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

24 hours in a day

The article presents a number of highly speculative reasons for the 24 hour day. Although these are mathematically correct, reliable sources have not been provided linking them to the invention of the 24 hour clock. Therefore the entire article is original research by synthesis. The only verifiable content, that the 24 hour clock was invented in ancient Egypt, is already discussed with sources in the article 12 hour clock. silly rabbit (talk) 17:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, might this be possibly speedy as a posible hoax? D.M.N. (talk) 17:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. as WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Not really speediable, but nothing reliable to merge. JohnCD (talk) 18:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This page was produce from the scheme ofinfinity symbol article, any explanation in wiki about the origin of the 24 hours "choice" is speculative. The "dimensions in nature" is too speculative? It's just another possible explanation, with no less legitimity than the other explanations. If anyone can send me a non-speculative explanation about this topic, I will be glad to receive it. I also would be glad to merge the article, for example in a compact form without illustrations. Firedrop (talk) 18:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In fact in the infinity symbol article, the possibility of the 8 being a hourglass functions very well and is an impressive possibility, the dimensional 24 is same minded. At least the article can be compacted to one possible explanation of 24 in the hour article or the 24 hour clock, without its illustrations for better integration?Firedrop (talk) 18:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the same reasons I wrote when prodding it: it's original research by synthesis. The individual facts used as "evidence" here (the structure of the garnet crystal, or the existence of certain regular 4-polytopes) are not in question, but there is no reliable sourcing for putting them together into a theory that they had anything to do with the origins of our system of time measurement. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please check the present state of the article, anything over hypothetical has been removed, in order, I repeat, to follow the scheme of theinfinity symbol article. Should I remove it myself?Firedrop (talk) 18:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Infinity symbol is (as of this writing) decorated with a notice that it contains unsourced claims. This is not a model to emulate. Ryan Reich (talk) 19:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Mostly WP:OR or duplication of info already included in Hour. Pburka (talk) 19:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ just another hypothesis, can be added to the hour article hypothesisFiredrop (talk) 19:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. OK for WP:OR as no external source cited this hypothesis before, thanks for your time. Firedrop (talk) 19:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Based on this !vote, I've tagged the article for WP:CSD#G7 speedy deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article on days gives enough information. Martarius (talk) 19:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In its present form appears to be almost entirely OR. Also, a bit of a content fork for 12-hour clock. Nsk92 (talk) 20:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThis deletion process was truly catalyzing for my hypothesis, I speedily needed to change regular to rhombic dodecahedron (only rhombic files 3D space). Also it made me discover the interesting honeycomb structure and it's possible observation by the A.Egyptians both for hexagon and rhombic dodecahedral honeycomb. Thanks to all of you! Firedrop (talk) 22:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article titled hour reports the origins in ancient Egypt of the practice of dividing the day into 24 hours. The fact that honeycombs satisfy a principle of minimum energy is almost certainly reported in some appropriate article too, and the claim that these two both belong in the same article for the reasons proposed just isn't cogent at all. Similarly for the various other topics in this article. Michael Hardy (talk) 23:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThe idea is crystal clear: they had the star clock during the night and the sun during the day. Now they needed to choose a number that permits to divide the day into parts. The whole context is periodic, periodic days, years etc...

In the 2D what is more appealing than the also periodic shape called hexagon that appears as minimal energy..., same for the 3D rhombic dodecahedron, and knowing that in the 1D they are only 3 objects, their is a good possibility that 24 looked liked the ideal number to symbolize time. It's just a hypothesis, but it refers to a very simple observational process of conceptualizing and assimilating the dimensions.Firedrop (talk) 23:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure), as notability is confirmed. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of sportspeople by nickname

AfDs for this article:

Was Speedy Deleted last July, BLP concerns. To me, it looks like an indiscrimiate list. A lot of the article is unreferenced, and parts may be concerned trivia, as it is someone's nickname, which may not be notable for an encyclopedia. D.M.N. (talk) 17:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nicknames are obviously notable. 'Magic' Johnson. 'Rocket' Ronnie. etc etc. Reference concerns for individual entries should be treated in the normal way, which is not Afd. As for this being an 'indiscriminate list', that's just nonsense. MickMacNee (talk) 19:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Very valuable, indeed the field of sports is one in which the use of knicknames is quite widespread, so this article serves as a good reference. TheWP:INDISCRIMINATE guidelines only quotes FAQs, plot summaries, lyrics, stats and news reports, little to do with the aim of this article. Mrbluesky (talk) 19:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I'm (slowly) adding cites for the various nicknames in the article one section at a time (I'm starting with the various tennis nicks), and intend to blank each section of unreferenced stuff once I'm done. But I do believe the list should stay once fully referenced. Tabercil (talk) 20:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This list could easily become unmanageable. For some sections we might be better off with the converse of this list, e.g. List of professional wrestlers without nicknames. Pburka (talk) 00:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. But in the original alphabetical format, as in this current format, separate lists for different sporting disciplines do exist. therefore it makes an easy target for AfD. Jay Pegg (talk) 00:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These nicknames are notable. The only problem is that the list is not sourced. --Rabbethan 14:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, thus keep, though needs better sourcing to be honest. Black Kite 23:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hotel Union Square

Non-notable hotel. No substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources that I can find. The fact that Dashiel Hammett's bride once spent a night there is completely trivial. Sandstein 17:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per [23] and [24]. Per the March 11, 2007 Toronto Sun this is the first boutique hotel in SF, if you need a claim of notability. Will try to add some of these sources to article. --Rividian (talk) 18:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did perform these searches. They do not provide us with any substantial coverage, as far as I can see, and we would need such coverage to provide notability, not just WP:GHITS. Sandstein 19:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Several results, including the one I mentioned and [25] do seem to be substantial coverage. I didn't say anything about the number of hits... --Rividian (talk) 20:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide a link to that Toronto Sun article? The LA Times article is a good start, but I don't know whether 289 words about a renovation are a sufficient basis for a neutral encyclopedia article. Sandstein 20:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I got it off Lexus Nexus. The coverage is actually not that great, 3 paragraphs, but it does establish the notability claim. I understand sceptisim about the sourcing... I wish I had time to actually reference them in the article. But with various articles over the years, even if just 289 words, it seems notable enough for me. --Rividian (talk) 20:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, needs references but clearly a notable and historic hotel, whatever its current status. Suggest broader search next time. --Dhartung | Talk 19:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Change vote to weak delete, possibly fixable but unsure at this time. A good chunk of hits for "Golden West Hotel" are for ones in LA and San Diego, and for one in San Francisco which apparently was a casualty of the 1906 quake and fire. And searching on "union square hotel", even with "san francisco", finds sources which are primarily about one in New York. "hotel union square" is complicated by other hotels which put those three words at the end of their names, like the Crowne Plaza Hotel Union Square. It does seem to be one to which Hammett was partial, and per a source I added Lillian Hellman was another guest, so it's a favorite itinerary stop for their fans. But I can't find even confirmation of when it was built other than the Personality Hotels website. Sorry, Sandstein. --Dhartung | Talk 19:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete per Dhartung, unless more sources are found. Nsk92 (talk) 20:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a well-known San Francisco hotel. I'm somewhat surprised to see it here (for subject matter -- the article, admittedly, needs work). Ecoleetage (talk) 23:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, could you provide references to sources covering it? Sandstein 05:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the material available is sufficient for notability. DGG (talk) 05:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --JForget 23:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cocamide TEA

Triethanolamides such as a "cocamido triethanolamide" do not exist (at least not as stable compounds). A Beilstein database search did not give a single hit for any triethanolamide and only 5 suspect hits for trialkylamides in general. The confusion probably stems from listings were "cocamide" and "TEA" (triethanolamine) were listed subsequently as different chemicals. Cacycle (talk) 17:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Chem is incorrect, probably a mistaken spin-off of a jargon-rich area.--Smokefoot (talk) 18:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strange, is this a case of a "chemical urban legend"? There are 651 google hits for "cocamide TEA", and it's even mentioned in one book. But neither the web pages nor the book seem really authoritative. And a few hundred hits is nothing compared with the ~100,000 google hits and about 100 book hits for its relatives cocamide DEA and cocamide MEA. It's also revealing that cocamide DEA even has a CAS registry number (68603-42-9), and cocamide MEA too (68140-00-1). But there is no CAS number for cocamide TEA. All in all, I'm leaning towards Delete. --Itub (talk) 09:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I get 124 unique hits, but a very high proportion of them are Wikipedia mirrors. Also, the book gives an incorrect (and impossible) structure for cocamide DEA, so it obviously has at least some errors in this area. It's listed as having been published in 2007, so it's possible that the (brief) reference to cocamide TEA is derived from Wikipedia. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 14:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The compound does not appear in Chemical Abstracts indicating that there has been no mention of this compound in the chemical literature - a near impossibility for something that is claimed to be an ingredient in commercial personal care products. From a chemistry standpoint, this would be unlikely to be a stable compound. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The reaction of triethanolamine with a fatty acid would (maybe) produce a soap, but we seem to have no reliable data on which to base an article. As it stands, the article has no specific references and its only external link—broken, as it turns out—is to the [http://www.ewg.org/ "Environmental Working Group"]: while I wouldn't want to criticize the site itself, links to this site are a very good pointer to badly written chemicals articles, in my humble experience. Physchim62 (talk) 18:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I had a crude search of the abstract and titles in a patent database and found no hits for "cocamide TEA". For comparison "cocamide MEA" gave 12 hits and "cocamide DEA" gave 15 hits, so maybe this is not the most sensitive search. The only real hit I found on the web was [link] but it doesn't appear to be the most definitive web page I've ever seen. Based on the above comments, delete -- Quantockgoblin (talk) 00:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I did a substructure search with the triethanolamine/fatty acid headgroup in the Sigma-Aldrich website and got no hits. In comparison the same search with the DEA headgroup recovered five compounds containing this structure. Tim Vickers (talk) 15:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Many chemical substances used in commerce are undefined mixtures, such as this. See the article on Cocamide--this is not a single compound, but a ,ixture of chemical species with variable lengths of the carbon chain. there are many analogs among substances used as fats or their derivatives. The article needs some editing to clarify this. DGG (talk) 04:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No one is denying the existence of notable mixtures. In fact, cocamide DEA and cocamide MEA (which are not nominated for deletion) are mixtures. But unlike "cocamide TEA": 1) they have CAS numbers; 2) they are found in multiple reliable chemical databases and catalogs; 3) they produce 100-1000 times more google and google books hits; 4) they are chemically plausible. The relatively few google hits for "cocamide TEA" are likely either typos or misconceptions. --Itub (talk) 08:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We have reliable information for cocamide: we have not been able to find any reliable sources for this article. That in itself is a good enough reason for deletion in my book. Physchim62 (talk) 12:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have to ask, what level of proof are we assessing this on? "Beyond reasonable double" or on the "balance of probability". If it is on "BOP" then this article should be deleted. If it is "BRD" then DGG has a point and I think there is some doubt as to whether this is a "real" compound or not, perhaps only being transient in nature. However that said, I think I would still say that it is "BRD" that this compound is not real and should be deleted. -- Quantockgoblin (talk) 12:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unlike Cocamide MEA and Cocamide DEA, it's an implausible structure, at least as a stable compound in an aqueous environment (as it would have to be in a shampoo). This is equally true whether it's a single chain length or a mixture of chain lengths - you can't put three alkyl groups on the nitrogen of an amide and get a stable compound. I was surprised to see the name mentioned briefly in a couple of patents (eg [26]), but there's no way of telling whether this refers to a different structure to the one shown, or is the result of a simple error in writing the patent. It may be the article was the result of a misconception or misunderstanding; I've asked the creator to comment, but he doesn't seem very active these days. Delete as implausible and unverifiable. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 11:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note a further sign that the creator was confused about this compound; it was added to the Surfactant article as a non-ionic surfactant, yet the structure drawn is that of an ionic compound. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 13:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm no longer confused by the patent; a close reading shows that the list of surfactants in claim 8 is identical to the list in Surfactant - it was probably copied from Wikipedia. Sloppy. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 14:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted per WP:CSD#G3. user:Lyle123 hoax. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HsmFriends

Fails WP:CRYSTAL, WP:N et al. asenine ^{say what?} 17:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. How can you tell? This page (and the related list) were created today, and there isn't enough context yet even to tell what this is. (By the way, the AfD template was missing from the article, so I added it.) AnturiaethwrTalk 17:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do, however, lean toward deletion, given that a Google search doesn't help me figure out what "HsmFriends" is. AnturiaethwrTalk 18:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If memory serves,hasn't this page (and similar pages) been deleted time after time? If so, why should this time be any different? 99.230.152.143 (talk) 18:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there needs to be a Speedy category for this (maybe too little context? /shrug). As it is now, there's not enough there, there doesn't seem to be any way to expand it, and it misses WP:N by a mile. The author keeps removing the afd template, which adds to the annoyance. Merenta (talk) 19:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, now I can give a firm strong delete. This is borderline gibberish (maybe enough for a G1 speedy), but as far as I can make out it fails WP:N (and probably others) by a ~~country mile~~ parsec. It definitely has been deleted before, but I think that was a G1, so G4 doesn't apply yet. AnturiaethwrTalk 19:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry, that was List of HsmFriends episodes, which looks like it was deleted under G1 no fewer than four times within four minutes about two weeks ago, judging by the author's Talk page. AnturiaethwrTalk 19:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Borderline unintelligible, possibily fits speedy G1. Did anyone actually understand which future show the article is talking about? Nsk92 (talk) 20:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There isn't any new show - the links to the imdb entry and tv.com go to pages about a completely different show, and the "oficial website" link goes to the author's YouTube page. This is a hoax. What a piece of work. Merenta (talk) 00:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also this page mentions that this youtube show was once called "Lucky Ashley" which is a deleted page that's protected against recreation. 99.230.152.143 (talk) 21:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoaxalicious, spam, stupidity, you name it. Also delete every article this hoaxmonger has created. JuJube (talk) 02:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the creator of this article is still at work and there was another one added just a few hours ago:List of Hsmfriends(Season 1). Should all this be reported at WP:AN/I? Or maybe at WP:AIV? Nsk92 (talk) 02:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kurtis Krow

An internet search for the novels this person is best known for turns up no information; neither does a Google search for his name alone. Seems to be a non-notable person. Rnb (talk) 17:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks like a hoax. No references anywhere, Google search for author's name returns only the 2 Wikipedia hits[27]. Nsk92 (talk) 20:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoaxalicious JuJube (talk) 02:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Zero ghits outside of Wikipedia. Probably a hoax and in the unlikely case it's not I doubt anything in the article can be verified via reliable sources. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 03:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I had a similar lack of success finding sources on dogpile.com. Sincerley, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. This obvious hoax should have been speedied. Qworty (talk) 22:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I added a search through the Gale database, just in case such a boy wonder should turn up in a newspaper article or magazine, but K.K.'s accomplishments seem to have gone unrecorded. --AnnaFrance (talk) 14:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--Kubigula (talk) 15:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Topher Mohr

A speedy tag was declined but I think this is a straightforward non-notable autobiography, ie. spam. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 17:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:N, therefore, non-notable.--Ryan Cross (talk ♠ Review) 21:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment On what do you base your circular 'delete' argument? Have you personally done a search to verify that he is non-notable? Have you seen his biography on his music publisher's site which reprints an interview [28] with him from Trace Magazine, for example? Have you checked to see if he might meet the notability criteria for composers? He co-wrote one of the songs on Alice Smith's latest album. Voceditenore (talk) 06:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 21:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with no prejudice to re-creation when/if he does become more notable. I have done a pretty thorough search, and he does not appear to have achieved that yet. The solo tour hasn't happened yet for one thing. One of the songs on the Alice Smith album mentioned above, is notable ("Dream"), but it was not the one that Mohr co-wrote ("Desert Song"). And no, Wikipedia is not the place for advance PR. However, it was right for the admin to have declined the speedy delete. It was slapped on the article within 2 minutes of its creation! Far more appropriate to tag and then wait a few days to see if the creator or anyone else could have developed the article and provide references. Voceditenore (talk) 06:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Voceditenore. --Bardin (talk) 11:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Close As Misunderstanding Of Policy. Non-Admin Closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of nu metal bands

This Article is a List And should be deleted. Trees Rock ^{Plant A Tree!} 16:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - As with most music genres, this list provides readers more information than a category. While origin of the band is the only additional information given in the list in question, it could be enhanced to provide more information. See here for more lists. As many bands (particularily in the rock / heavy metal area) are associated with a large range of different genres or subgenres, often not all genres are included by category in the article to prevert overcategorization. This list gives the info that would be missing that way. Also, I cannot help but to assume bad faith in this nomination (nu metal is a genre disliked by many), as the nominator did not nominate any other lists, some of which are identical in layout to this one. Further more, the nominator did not provide an actual reason for deletion. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | ~ 16:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Nom does not give a reason for bringing this to AFD, aside from the fact it was a list. lists are indeed allowed on Wikipedia Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 17:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep/close - Nom blatantly misunderstands policy. asenine ^{say what?} 17:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete no independetly established notability. References are to self published works on other sites. It does look like a attempt to self promote. - Nabla (talk) 00:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sumer's Radiology Weblog

Reason behind this are -
a. This seems to be a self advertisement. The article has been written by one of the concerned persons, Anil Aggarwala, who incidentally has authored a number of articles on himself and his achievements/books in wikipedia. The site's URL is http://sumerdoc.blogspot.com/.
b. The different references links provide in blog, when looked up, provides the following result -

Journal of Thoracic Imaging is self published by the author of the blog Sumer Sethi.

Same with BMJ

The Radiographics link cited is dubious in nature as this actually is an e-mail by the author of the blog Dr. Sumer Sethi.

Similarly, International Society of Radiology link is self published by Dr. Sumer Sethi.

The blog has one genuine mention in Times of India, but not in the main paper. It was mentioned in the meant for Delhi only supplement Delhi Times. The link is here

The blog is a winner of MedGadget 2005 web award for best clinical blog the link of which is here

c. A Google search (check it out here) does not offer established sources to verify the claims of notability by the Editor.

Thanks. Shovon (talk) 16:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note the edits by Anil1956 & 122.162.58.16. Same wordings. Both are from Delhi. Now see the edits by the IP user,Special:Contributions/122.162.58.16. Any suggestions? It is clear that the user Anil1956 is using Sock Puppets to boos up his case. Thanks. Shovon (talk) 18:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason of notability is in the wikipedia policy itself Internet guides. Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers, but should describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance, which can be significantly more up-to-date than most reference sources since we can incorporate new developments and facts as they are made known. This article is not a description of the site alone but the phenomenon of which site is popularly considered as forrunner callled as Rad blogging. Agreed Article in Journal of thoracic imaging is self published but very fact it was accepted for publication in a leading Radiology indexed journal establishes itsrole in changing the outlook from journals to blogs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anil1956 (talk • contribs) 16:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly repeat the internet search with the title "Sumer's Radiology Site" which is exact title of the weblog — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anil1956 (talk • contribs)

Kindly sign your posts. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason of notability is in the wikipedia policy itself Internet guides. Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers, but should describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance, which can be significantly more up-to-date than most reference sources since we can incorporate new developments and facts as they are made known. This article is not a description of the site alone but the phenomenon of which site is popularly considered as forrunner callled as Rad blogging. Agreed Article in Journal of thoracic imaging is self published but very fact it was accepted for publication in a leading Radiology indexed journal establishes itsrole in changing the outlook from journals to blogs —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.162.58.16 (talk) 18:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, only one source that is not self-published or written (e.g. no matter the prestige of the medical journal, a letter to the editor touting one's blog does not translate into notability). --Dhartung | Talk 19:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article in question in Journal of thoracic imaging is not a letter to editor its a review article kindly recheck and it acknowledges Rad-Blogging as a new phenomenon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.162.59.146 (talk) 03:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is a "review article" that is written by the blogger. It is not an independent source, and does not count toward notability. --Dhartung | Talk 04:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Buddhist temples in Thailand

This stand-alone list is severely lacking and impossible to complete. It fails to serve the purposes outlined under WP:LIST#Purposes of lists, has no notability criteria for inclusion and is not annotated, thereby providing no useful information whatsoever (perhaps except for sorting by province, which is entirely replaceable by subcategorising.) Paul_012 ^(talk) 16:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To put this in perspective, there are a total of 33,902 registered functioning Buddhist temples in Thailand as of 2004 according to the ministry of culture.[29] Mentioning a handful, half of which are red links, with no regard to importance or notability, is unlikely to provide encyclopaedic information in my opinion. --Paul_012 ^(talk) 18:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, looks fine to me. Categories and lists are not mutually exclusive. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. —Paul_012 ^(talk) 18:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Provides information categories cannot-- organization by geography, images, and useful red-links for future articles. Clearly a notable subject. Just needs some sourcing and maybe some text/information. If the list gets too long, break it up into sections. Dekkappai (talk) 19:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have incorporated the geographical organisation provided by this list into the structure of Category:Buddhist temples in Thailand. Images can be included in category pages. Also, the list guidelines state that "as Wikipedia is optimized for readers over editors, any lists which exist primarily for development or maintenance purposes (such as a list of red link articles needed) should be in project or user space not the main space, if the list is not otherwise encyclopedic." --Paul_012 ^(talk) 20:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. -- Dekkappai (talk) 19:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Needs a lot of work, obviously, but this is insufficient reason to delete a subject that is clearly notable and encyclopedic. Eventually could be broken into subarticles by area/city, etc. once comprehensiveness grows. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the page is to be kept, advise on how to turn the page into an encyclopaedic article would be appreciated. Granted, there is an official list (in Thai), but even if someone were to undertake the daunting task of translating and incorporating the thirty-thousand-plus temples into the article, it would leave us with a list one hundred times the length of List of churches in the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York. I wonder what the reader would gain from such a list, which borders on being a directory, which Wikipedia is not. --Paul_012 ^(talk) 11:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No one is arguing that lists are "encyclopaedic". Lists are "almanacical". Wikipedia is a reference work containing elements of an encyclopedia, almanac, and gazetteer. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 12:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Perfect example of regiocentricity. Church list is ok, temple list is bad. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I don't understand your comment. I never said that such lists of churches are of great encyclopaedic value (although that one is far more complete and informative than this list), nor did I say this list should be deleted because it is a list of temples. It is, however, a hugely incomplete list of multiple subjects, some of which are notable, some of which aren't, with very poor prospect of ever being expanded and improved enough to be of use. I've been watching the page for two years, and although there have been additions now and then, all that's been achieved is an arbitrary list which provides no further information about its topics. As I said above, though, suggestions to improvement are welcome, though I wonder who would be interested enough in the article to apply them. --Paul_012 ^(talk) 08:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are various comparable lists of churches - List of churches in Greater Manchester is one of the better ones. A directory gives addresses and phone numbers - not sure there is any danger of that. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 18:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have to side with Paul on this one -- the list is incomplete, and there are too many red links in what is presented. Ecoleetage (talk) 23:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Incomplete is not a reason for deletion. If it was, we would have to delete every stub in Wikipedia. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 12:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I do not understand the nominator's rationale. Thailand is famous for the religion and temples. Even though the list has long way to go, but I don't see any good reason for the list to be deleted. List is a compact version of what related articles are here and have to be created. If the red links are problems, then create article or de-linked. --Appletrees (talk) 00:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I find the "The list is incomplete, delete it" argument quite fascinating. Is there a movement afoot to delete all non-complete articles now? Dekkappai (talk) 17:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: obviously the list would benefit from (a lot of) upgrading work but the subject matter is unobjectionable, and lists are complementary to cats, not opposed to them. HeartofaDog (talk) 17:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable subject and appropriate list . DGG (talk) 05:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable list. Culturalrevival (talk) 02:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Bhaktivinode (talk) 13:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Some sources have been found, and while they haven't satisfied everybody, there does not appear to be a consensus to delete, and a number of editors have expressed that this element in Half-Life is too important to remove. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Black Mesa Research Facility

Fails the notability requirements for fiction, dealing entirely with the subject from an in universe perspective with no secondary sources which prove notability. I would say merge, except all the good info has been summarized within the games. - Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per the well-detailed nom. Fancruft.--WaltCip (talk) 21:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Half-Life (series). I would say merge, but the good, relevant information is already in the appropriate articles. On its own, the subject simply isn't notable. This could only ever be written in an in-universe style. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 21:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge trimmed content to Half-Life (series) (also would include Black Mesa East and City 17 at the same time though they are not part of this AFD). A "setting" section in a article about a video game series would be completely appropriate. --MASEM 23:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Especially since they don't come much more iconic than Black Mesa. Maybe Azeroth amd Level 1-1. --Kiz o r

- Keep per references found since. However, article needs major cleanup - we do not need a complete rundown of the facilities that are in the site that are mostly sourced from primary, just a general overview. --MASEM 20:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - And merge anything useful beforehand to the series article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep as notable element of notable game that is well presented with references that are consistent per First pillar with a specialized enyclopedia. WP:ITSCRUFT is never a good reason for deletion, nor is WP:PERNOM. Also, we cannot merge and delete per Wikipedia:Merge and delete. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete and merge some kind of summarized overview to a Half-life article, as something that is not notable outside of the context of that main Half-life article. Randomran (talk) 04:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Simply a plot "summary" plus detailed physical description of various levels of Half-Life. Nifboy (talk) 06:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and as such doesn't need this level of detail per WP:NOT#INFO. Una Laguna^Talk 06:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Phlegm Rooster's findings below assert notability and are plentiful enough to justify the subject matter an article to itself, even if the current article needs a cleanup. Una Laguna^Talk 19:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I was notified of the AfD of this article as its original creator. It has grown into a very detailed work translated into over a dozen languages since I last worked on it four years ago. If it were to be merged as some have suggested the detailed information contained in it would be lost in a more general article. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia and I see no reason why there can't be articles about seemingly trivial matters in fictional universes as is the case here if there are users willing to maintain the article, as is obviously the case given its current state. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 06:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I agree that this isn't any more fit for deletion than any of the other articles on fictional locations (see Azeroth in the World of Warcraft universe as an example. At worst merge into Half-Life 2 and keep the bulk of the text, because it's such a central element to the game--Camokub (talk) 09:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Azeroth is a disambiguation pointing to Warcraft (series), its article having been redirected. Nifboy (talk) 13:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: Being the fictional location of one of the most popular games in the world is not trivial. Wikipedia is one of the best sources on the internet for HL-related stuff, and it would be a shame to see it all deleted due to some nonsence about "notability". --The monkeyhate (talk) 13:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I figured that an extremely significant and well-known element of game design would raise professional interest. A cursory search found things like Narrative in Computer Games and Story: Writing Skills for Game Developers from the Game Developers' Conference. I'm going to go with keep here, those who have experience in editing Half-Life - related things or finding references for video game coverage should look deeper into this. --Kizor 14:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- While both can be considered secondary sources, the references above do not talk about Black Mesa, only giving the nod that Half Life takes place within it. Any sources for notability need to be more than just mentions of the location and should be more about any critical reception or commentary on it, or even developer information (I've done a google news search with no luck along these lines). --MASEM 15:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, true enough on the sourcing requirements, but I figured - and figure - that these two do describe Black Mesa beyond just mentioning it as the place where Half-Life happens. There's a fair few things to be said about the way the location is designed to conduct narrative indirectly without taking control away from the player, and the sense of ordinary life gone wrong that the first game's peaceful opening underlines. You'll be happy to note that the former file does have developer information about the narrative and the inspiration of Stephen King's The Mist. --Kizor 16:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Even if one could read those as sufficient analysis for secondary sources, if those are the only two we have (I'm not saying there may not be more), the amount of other content in the article relative to this is out of balance. The influence of "The mist" can still be mentioned if merged to another article. --MASEM 18:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and delete. I wonder if we're perhaps getting sidetracked here? There is no argument that Half Life is a very popular game and that this is a very nice, extensive article about one of HL's locations. Nobody wants to vaporize the article into nonexistence. The question is simply whether it belongs here in WP. As an encyclopedia article, it has many problems that have been pointed out and that haven't been fixed: the material is told from an in-universe perspective which is not appropriate for WP, there is a distinct lack of 3rd-party citations, and there is at least a serious question of notability as this article rests solely on the notability of HL, not its own. --AnnaFrance (talk) 15:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As already indicated above, per the GFDL, we cannot legally "merge and delete". Please see Wikipedia:Merge and delete. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Delete. So, since the good information all appears elsewhere, as already indicated above, there is no need for such a flawed article. --AnnaFrance (talk) 17:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - As has been indicated throughout this discussion there are far more reasons to keep this article than to delete it. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's no reason not to keep the article. Unless, of course, someone feels like he has the authority to decide what fits in and what doesn't. Soviet censors did the same thing. Mikael GRizzly (talk) 16:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What --Kiz o r 16:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki Why not transwiki to Half life wikia?. --SkyWalker (talk) 17:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it was easy to find that this particular fictional location is very notable. It has 7 Google books hits, 11 Google scholar hits, and 53 Google news hits. Some of these sources do more than mention the location; they claim that it was ground-breaking, responsible for the success of the game, and well-realized, among other things. They discuss, in detail, what the visual and temporal design of the location means to the player as the game is played. We could ask no more of the sources than this, the very definition of notability. I loaded up the article's lead with some of the book references just now, please take a look. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 19:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

None of the google books, at least from the previews shown, merit significant coverage; they are merely mentions. Same thing for the scholar mentions; they are mentioning the setting of Half-Life, but unless they are providing critical commentary exclusively about the location, it doesn't meet notability requirements. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article already exists in transwikied form here. If the article is kept then it needs to be entirely ripped up and started again from an encyclopedic viewpoint as its current form is unacceptable. There's no disputing (although someone inevitably will) that the article is an utter mess of in-universe information and original research. If deleted, redirect to Half-Life (series) afterwards to preserve the search term. In any case, most of the relevant articles contain much of the necessary information already in the "setting" sections. -- Sabre (talk) 17:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Google News results linked by Phlegm Rooster. These clearly demonstrate notability. Oren0 (talk) 19:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, they don't. See above comments, Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) and WP:N. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is a matter of interpretation (or spin), but I have tried to distinguish between mere mentions and reviews/analysis. I think the sources rise to the occasion in this rare case. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 20:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Notability (fiction) is a proposed policy. The policy for notability in general requires non-trivial mention in third-party reliable sources, which this article meets. Though I would support Merging to Locations in the Half-Life series as proposed directly below. Oren0 (talk) 21:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion This might be a reasonable case to merge Black Mesa Research Facility, City 17, Black Mesa East, Xen, Nova Prospeck, Ravenholm, The Coast, White Forest Rocket Facility, and possibly the section on Aperture Science from Portal (video game) to a single article Locations in the Half-Life series. This is tied with the references mentioned above in that though explicit for Half-Life, I would not be surprised to find similar comments for the Half-Life 2 locations (I can find at least one on Ravenhelm) - in other words, there does appear to be sufficient sources to state that the "locations" of Half-Life games are notable. Merging them (with redirects, so as not to merge and delete, and transwiking existing pages) with the correct amount of trimming, may be helpful to link these aspects all in to avoid the excess text that might be there presently, yet present all these locations in an encyclopedic manner. --MASEM 21:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That would be an ideal solution. While individual locations may not be notable, establishing notability for the concept of locations in HL should work - its what we do for a lot of character articles after all. That gets my support. -- Sabre 21:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This article seems to perfectly satisfy verifability and other requirements, and I believe it should stay.Paulalex19 (talk) 01:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It certainly does not "perfectly satisfy verifability" - it barely references anything. Practically all of the article is original research, based on what the original writer deduced from the games. -- Sabre (talk) 08:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable location in highly notable series. Size suggests merging may be unwieldy. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Part of the problem is the size of this article. It is not necessary to cover all the known portions of the facility, but instead to give a general overview of what the non-gamer should be aware exists within the facility as to understand why it is being called notable per the sources above (this puts undue weight on the in-universe aspects and not on it's reception). Most of this can be cut down to 2-4 paragraphs to keep the critical information, and thus making merging with other locations reasonable. Right now, as it stands, it is too much in-universe in tone, and reads like a promotional brochure for employment at Black Mesa. "Come work for us! Just ignore all the headcrabs..." Cutting down to key salient points (it is huge with its own internal underground tram system, there are numerous people employed there, and the research that goes on is this list) you still get the flavor of what BM is to be to those that have not played the game. --MASEM 13:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - agree.Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and edit very sharply. Its notable enough in the fiction for an article, but as is frequently the case, not all of it is important except to the fans. But some of it relevant to any understanding of the general topic. ,DGG (talk) 05:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It has still not been demonstrated that Black Mesa is independently notable; in all sources brought to the discussion thus far it is always discussed in the context of the Half-Life games. Notability is not inherited, and lots of games have their settings named in reviews, etc. but that doesn't make those settings notable. If the fictional locales of a game series is worth preserving outside the game articles, it should be done so via Masem's suggestion above. Ham Pastrami (talk) 12:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In the case of sub and spinout articles, notability is inherited. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - A spinout article needs to be clearly marked as such, per the suggestion I referred to earlier in merging it to "Locations in Half-Life" or any similarly titled article ("Setting of Half-Life"). A title that implies that the subject is independently notable ("Black Mesa Research Facility") is a no-go. Ham Pastrami (talk) 05:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Either trim to one or two sourced paragraphs and merge to Locations in the Half-Life series per Masem or delete. The possible sources identified by Phlegm Rooster fall slightly short of establishing notability for the subject, in my opinion, but together with sources for other locations there may be enough for a combined article. Jakew (talk) 20:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Casliber. Clearly notable feature of an even more clearly notable game series. Is the Enterprise from Star Trek not notable? Of course it is. Xihr (talk) 23:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Enterprise can establish its notability through third party sources. While the Enterprise article may not be a shining example of a properly done fictional article, you can at least see some of those sources mirrored in the article. Black Mesa does not apppear to have those sources (or certainly enough to justify why the article shouldn't be merged into a more concise locations of half-life article), and so does not meet independent notability. -- Sabre (talk) 11:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You do not appear to be disputing my point, which is that the subject is clearly notable, it just fails to assert its own notability. That's an argument to improve the article, not delete it. The notability of the subject is not in dispute here. Xihr (talk) 21:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are no "notability requirements for ficton." If you want secondary sources, start looking through these 92 sources[30][31][32]. AFD is for articles you think should be deleted, not merged. This article is an acceptable spinout of the Half-Life (video game)#Setting section. And David Fuchs continued crusade to delete all things related to Half-Life makes it appear like he has an axe to grind. --Pixelface (talk) 07:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Nothing is exempt from our notability process. That's why WP:FICT exists. If there weren't any notability requirements, the page wouldn't be there. I went through the links for the Half-Life reviews, and the only mention to Black Mesa is as the setting, not anything useful for developing an article from a real-world perspective. If there's no notability, it should not have a spin-out article full of original research, and its information should be limited to the setting part of Half-Life or as part of a collective article on Half-Life locations. It needs sources that do what is outlined here. -- Sabre (talk) 11:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I am only concerned that the keywords 'Black Mesa' eventually reach here, as this was the only definition I wanted to see. Eddietoran (talk) 07:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I'm a little unclear on what you mean here. You want to keep the article because its on a disambiguation page? -- Sabre (talk) 09:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As Masem has suggested, I'm working on a merged version for all the locations in my sandbox (while this article may potentially be able to portray notability, most of the others cannot). Don't expect it to be in a decent state for a while though, it probably won't be ready until after this AfD is finished. -- Sabre (talk) 09:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Not much participation, but the conclusion seems pretty clear.--Kubigula (talk) 15:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Baby jaan

The article is a dicdef. The only source I have been able to find is this essay in TIME Magazine, which says: "Malay shopkeepers call children baby-jaan, or "life,"... ". I'm not sure that's enough for notability. A ecis^Brievenbus 16:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. I happen to know the language and can assure that I have never across such a ridiculous meaning. This is a complete hoax. Should have been deleted using speedy. Shovon (talk) 16:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - Nabla (talk) 01:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jez Green

This actually appears to be a hoax. There is a Jez Green who is a tennis coach, and there was a Jez Bennett in 2004 who won a Racketlon tourney (I looked that up too, Racketlon is a sport, just not popular in the US) I downloaded the list of rankings from the Racketlon tournaments and there is a Marta Jez and a Stephan Jezler currently playing, but no Jez Green...the article's creator is JezzyJez, I suspect its a youngster with the same name as the tennis coach just having a go at us. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 16:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:V, sport he plays in might fail WP:N. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 00:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PeterSymonds (talk) 13:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spartak!

Originally badly listed on another entry by Mattbroon. Here is his original text: a clear commercial exercise —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattbroon (talk • contribs) 15:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC) asenine ^{say what?} 16:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak delete~~. On the one hand, we have a source holding them up as representative of Portuguese pop. On the other, the source is in Portuguese and is at a blog site. I'm going to say it comes up barely short of verifiability. —C.Fred (talk) 19:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have removed the Publico reference, as it is only attributable in Portuguese. I have added radio play as this is attributed, and additional discography. Independent radio play, reviews and connections to other Portuguese artists show this is not a commercial exercise, but holds true on notability criteria for musicians and ensembles. There is not much English language material available on even well-known Portuguese pop music. This is my first article but I hope to add more English articles on other notable Portuguese music artists and media soon. Altlusa (talk) 09:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— Altlusa (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -Altlusa (talk) 17:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Altlusa (talk) 18:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, upon reconsideration. The band has appeared on a compilation CD, and sources are starting to improve. I'm thinking they need the benefit of the doubt on the question of notability. —C.Fred (talk) 03:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. EdJohnston (talk) 03:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Colin (mathematician)

Contested prod; spam for a portfolio analyst with a doctorate in mathematics. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP I see nothing wrong with this. Mattbroon (talk) 16:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User:Mattbroon has been blocked today for two weeks for deliberate manipulation of the deletion process, see User talk:Mattbroon. Nsk92 (talk) 21:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Keep – I have added a notability statement and inline cite reference. Individual was one of the first to apply “Chaos Theory” to financial market. ShoesssS ^Talk 16:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The added reference does not appear to support the statement added to the article, although registration is required to access the whole article. silly rabbit (talk) 18:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not enough evidence presented to satisfy the notability requirements under either WP:PROF or WP:BIO. For WP:PROF one would have to see some substantial evidence of citability of his research in scholarly articles. I dod a bit of google and WoS searching but did not find much; with a common name like that it is hard to do filtering so perhaps something was inadvertently missed. Still, the keep proponents would have to present some positive and verifiable evidence of high citability here. The case for WP:BIO is even more problematic. I did not see any evidence of substantial coverage of him by independent third-party reliable sources (per WP:RS) as required to satisfy WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 17:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence that this person is notable per WP:PROF. silly rabbit (talk) 18:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Bduke (talk) 00:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis that first to apply “Chaos Theory” to financial market if that is a disputed fact please make that clear, if not then notable ... Note yet again AfD is not a clean up process. --Matilda ^talk 00:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- While the cite provided does not support the assertion he was the first, it does state Mathematicians and securities analysts are applying chaos theory to financial market behavior to determine nonlinear trends which can be expressed as algorithms. Citibank's Andrew Colin has used neural networks to create a program that can earn 25% returns per year investing in the currency markets. ie it supports that he is using chaos theory and applying ti to the financial markets. I note that this is an article in The Economist - a notable journal to be discussing your work in for this field- definitely meets WP:RS. Some other cites include A 1994 book published by Wiley and Sons called Trading on the Edge search for Colin's name within the book and you will find him mentioned several times as being an authority in the field. That book is apparently cited 112 times according to Google Books result[33]. Also different source but similar assertions Wired's Kevin Kelly reports on hacking financial markets as republished by Brown University for " Learning Dynamical Systems". At investment-performance.com the site introduces him as a moderator with "Andrew Colin is one of the world's leading authorities in performance analytics". His bio for that site is at [34] He is a published author by Wiley Books: Fixed Income Attribution As above AfD is not for clean up it is to discuss whether an article should be kept. I can see no reason that he fails to meet Wikipedia:Notability (academics). As per the cites I have quoted, Colin "is regarded as a significant expert in his or her area by independent sources." He is apparently "is known for originating an important new concept, theory or idea which is the subject of multiple, independent, non-trivial reviews or studies in works meeting our standards for reliable sources." - eg The Economist . --Matilda ^talk 01:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Economist reference is OK as far as it goes as is the Trading on the Edge reference (although the 112 citations of the latter goes towards notability of the book but not of someone that the book cites), but there are hardly sufficient. One would need to see either a high number of citations by numerous different scholarly articles/books or substantial coverage by multiple sources in conventional media (Economist belongs to that category). This is how WP:PROF has been consistently applied up to know. Moreover, it is not really clear if the Economist reference goes towards notability per WP:PROF at all since it is not talking about original research but rather about applications of some mathemtical tools in financial markets. That seems to go more towards general notability per WP:BIO (but again, by itself, far from sufficient) rather than notability as an academic known for original scholarly research. Nsk92 (talk) 01:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - I can't see how often his own book on Fixed Income is cited as it isn't on Google books but it get 1920 Google hits of which 206 seem to be unique I don't think that is worth much except perhaps to say it isn't totally obscure either. The Trading on the Edge book doesn't merely cite Colin but he is is one of the main contributing authora according to page xix - sorry my bad for not making this clear. I think the Wired ref republished by Brown university also helps the claim for notability - it mightn't be the strongest claim but I don't see the rationale for deletion either. --Matilda ^talk 01:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The standard fast tool to track citations in scholarly articles is GoogleScholar which shows just 1 citation[35]. GoogleBooks also shows just 1 hit, the book in question itself[36]. I'll check Web of Science and Scopus, but I doubt the results will be much different. Nsk92 (talk) 02:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep given the information here, which does of course need to be added to the article. Perhaps the title should be changed to (financial analyst)--as the field in which he works and is notable, rather than just the field of his degree. DGG (talk) 21:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 the lack of reliable and verifiable sources, indicating a lack of notability.

Popmundo

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Popmundo (2nd nomination)

Largely unreferenced (WP:V), and there are no independent references (I removed various dead links to the "unofficial wiki" and to a closed Fotolog account which I presume had a scan of what was claimed to be a Spanish Rolling Stones article.) The multiple, third-party, reliable, non-trivial coverage required for WP:Notability guidlines are not present. Marasmusine (talk) 14:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. Marasmusine (talk) 14:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable, does not differ from random browser based game #35566. User:Krator (t c) 11:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, The site did have a scan of the Rolling Stone article. Just because a game isn't in every major gaming magazine doesn't mean it's not notable. If necessary, I can rewrite the article. Much of the information comes from the game itself, so if a rewrite is necessary if this survives AFD, I'd be happy to write one. Morhange (talk) 01:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the link to the article translated into English: [37]. My concerns are: It doesn't explain who translated it, and multiple sources of coverage are preferred (Wikipedia:N#cite_note-4 suggests that a mention in a broader article may be suitable.) Marasmusine (talk) 09:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TerriersFan (talk) 15:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - the rolling stone article begins to help, but I'm not sure that the translation is reliable. and I don't think one article is enough by itself to demonstrate notability. if someone were to find something else, I'd welcome them to re-create the article. But I have to lean towards deletion. Randomran (talk) 05:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks multiple sources to establish notability. A single magazine article does not give broad enough scope for a video game - at least two are needed for the reception section, without which these is no article, merely a game listing. To this day nobody has stepped forward to fill the gap in MMOG coverage in-print and on-line, until someone decides to do so it will continue to be easier to source an article on the average flash game than a considerably more complex MMOG. Someone another 00:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Here's a news segment that was uploaded to Youtube. Dunno if this helps, and I can't speak Spanish (I think that's the language) here Morhange (talk) 20:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elino

Complete WP:OR, and a protologism. asenine ^{say what?} 15:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NEO. Ros0709 (talk) 15:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or at most copy to Wiktionary. --Justpassin (talk) 15:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neologism. --KurtRaschke (talk) 15:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Move to wikitionary. Trees Rock ^{Plant A Tree!} 15:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Dictionary definition of an unsourced neologism. It should be moved to Wiktionary only if the word can be verified as being in use. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A as a dictionary definition, per WP:DICTDEF. Nsk92 (talk) 16:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- The article itself even states that it is a neologisms by saying: “…the word is limited to the inner suburbs of Sydney at the time of writing (May 2008), as shown here[38]. ShoesssS ^Talk 16:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is nothing wrong with this article. It makes a valuable contribution to the encyclopedia. Mattbroon (talk) 16:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User:Mattbroon has been blocked on May 17, 2008 for two weeks for deliberate disruption of the deletion process. See User talk:Mattbroon for details. Nsk92 (talk) 00:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Delete "Neologism" is being rather kind to it. Blueboy 96 18:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - false definition. Elino was actually the capital of the imaginary country I created as a small child (Dinosh - and yes, the capital really was Elino - it was inland from the large port city of Ketien. And if you know the names of any cities to the northeast of Elino, you're part way to knowing my password!) But that definition of Elino is hardly worth an article either. Grutness...wha? 01:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete junk. JuJube (talk) 02:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a self-styled neologism, it's also not notable. End of story. Merenta (talk) 00:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 11:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unremarkable neologism. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. _GB^T/C 15:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dj damyard

Article does not list any sources and I cannot find any. Appears to fail WP:N. Biggest claim to notability appears to be a youtube video with 5000 views. TN‑X-Man 14:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unnecessary nomination - article is currently up for CSD#A7. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Postpone discussion until after an uninvolved admin either speedily deletes the article or removes the speedy tag. --Justpassin (talk) 15:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Runescape secret letters

Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. Also, this is a complete hoax. No sources were cited. Holding the alt key while typing the numbers are enough, not pressing alt twice. Only Wikipedia popped out on a hunt at Google. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 13:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Mr mark taylor (talk) 14:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unsourced possible hoax article, not notable even if it were true. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 15:08, May 17, 2008 (UTC)
Delete per above. --Justpassin (talk) 15:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as gibberish/nonsense, wouldn't it have qualified for speedy?--Doug Weller (talk) 15:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I speedied a similar titled article about a month ago by the same user, but they must have put up a fight for this one. Mr mark taylor (talk) 15:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above Trees Rock ^{Plant A Tree!} 15:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, gamecruft, per WP:NOT#HOWTO. JohnCD (talk) 20:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a "how to" one would not likely find in an encyclopedia or almanac. I could not find any sources with which to improve the article. Sources listed on the article are: "You can check this out and make sure that this is NOT a hoax by going to : Runescape.com and try to get some of the secret letters. Plus... haven't you ever wondered how people can make things like this: =Þ on Runescape? If you really don't believe me, then just try this and you will see that I wasn't lying." Thus, the article itself reads more like a talk page discussion. The article even includes a "Special Thanks" section that reads, "To the people who helped me find them and told me how to get them... thank you." I did fix the lead, but am unable to do much else. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Unsubstantiated, illogical article Artene50 (talk) 05:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - at best, this is WP:Original research. Marasmusine (talk) 10:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as these instructions fail WP:NOT#GUIDE--Gavin Collins (talk) 14:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--Kubigula (talk) 15:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ankit Bajaj

A one line biography of an individual who does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion in the encyclopedia per WP:BIO. No reliable sources found per searches on the article talk page. Prod was removed with the comment, "removed the need to delete as the information is accurate". Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Information may be accurate, but there are no sources listed other than personal websites. Without further information, article fails WP:N. TN‑X-Man 14:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Justpassin (talk) 15:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Gsearch not coming up with a whiff of notability, nor is notability claimed in article. --Fabrictramp (talk) 00:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 criterion WP:CSD#G3 as a blatant hoax. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chewinggum Airlines

No hits. None whatsoever. Possible hoax. asenine ^{say what?} 11:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence that the subject even exists. I could not find any references to the supposed 2005 plane crash either. In any case, Fails WP:N. The creator keeps removing the AfD tag from the article. Nsk92 (talk) 11:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence to support. If deleted, please also remove from List of airlines of the People's Republic of China. -- MightyWarrior (talk) 12:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Since the author has begun blanking the page, shouldn't someone stick a {{db-author}} tag on the article instead of reverting to restore the text? Deor (talk) 12:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure about this. As a point of information, the article's creator has been blocked for 31 hours[39]. Whether or not {{db-author}} is appropriate here, it seems to me that a speedy close for this AfD might be in order anyway. Nsk92 (talk) 15:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - appears to be a hoax, but if the author blanks the lot then as Deor says do the speedy. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Deor. --Justpassin (talk) 15:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as {{db-author}}. The author did blank the page just before he was blocked. By the way, the Chinese name shown on this page translates, according to Babelfish, as "Chinese New China Aviation", with no reference to chewing gum. The name was probably just copied from China Xinhua Airlines as part of the hoax. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP This article has historical importance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattbroon (talk • contribs) 16:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
G3 Pure vandalism from a blocked author. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Flowerparty^☀ 22:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beat Goes On (Madonna song)

Absolutely no source information that this song is to be released as a single, cover is fake (a fan made picture that has been around for months), and nothing of note to warrant an article JKW111 (talk) 11:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - until sources can be found for the song's release. As it stands the song isn't notable and there is no information on whether it is even going to be released. When information becomes available, then the article can be recreated. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 15:10, May 17, 2008 (UTC)
Delete - per WP:CRYSTAL and unsourced. I doubt that the single cover image is legit, too. - eo (talk) 21:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no sources to prove this is the next single. Paul75 (talk) 22:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - interested editors may also want to check out Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miles Away (Madonna song). - eo (talk) 11:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: There is nothing in WP:MUSIC requiring a song to be officially released as a single. There is a criterion covering charting on a national hits chart, which this has twice over. Ravenswing 13:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Unclear whether 'national chart hit' in WP:MUSIC includes mere ranking of download popularity, or refers to official chart positions, which does require an official single. The charts referred to in the article are download tables only (from a single day, not even over the week) and not the official 'singles' charts for those countries as claimed. JKW111 (talk) 06:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:MUSIC#C2. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 14:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:Music#Songs. This song has no notability on its own yet. WP:Music#C2 applies to musicians/artists not songs. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolfer68 (talk • contribs) 23:39, 21 May 2008

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - Nabla (talk) 01:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mick Morris

The subject does not meet basic notability guidelines - there are no published sources available and the article appears to have used MySpace as its source for some of the content. It is vandalised fairly frequently, and I don't ever see the article's subject meeting the guidelines. Edit: Also does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC guidelines either. Sagaciousuk ^(talk) 11:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Danny (talk) 11:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --JForget 23:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Abberley

Not notable cricketer, he has failed to play a single first-class or List A match which is the notablity criteria for cricketers, see Wikipedia:CRIN Jpeeling (talk) 10:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. --Jpeeling (talk) 10:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn cricketer. No premier league appearances and at age 40 not likely to be any. fails per WP:ATHLETE.--Sting Buzz Me... 10:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Andrew nixon (talk) 12:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO, section on athletes. Stephen Turner (Talk) 15:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. JH (talk page) 16:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Johnlp (talk) 17:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Close as requested; the current redirect will be deleted. Waggers (talk) 14:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Latin and Ballroom Dance Association

Local association has 32 Google hits. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 10:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, local dance club with no claim to or evidence of notability--Jac16888 (talk) 13:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article makes no claims of notability, no sources listed. TN‑X-Man 14:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - and it's a shame too, as the article is halfway decently written. The author just forgot step 1 to creating a Wikipedia article: Make sure your topic is notable. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC) Changing rationale, it's still a delete, see below. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 12:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for seeing the potential in this article. I'm spending a lot of time at home trying to write good copy. New articles, especially written by newbies like me, take time to develop. I read in the wiki instructions that often times new articles usually start off really bad but it doesn't warrant the need for deletion. Sambahips (talk) 10:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable local organisation Kafka Liz (talk) 09:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - Hi everyone, I'm the primary author as well as a newbie to the wiki system. The comments made above are very valid as this article speaks a need for notability. I intend to add references where needed to raise the credibility of the article. I am currently working with the Association's staff, who are overhauling their content management system. As such, they have some very important publications that would substantiate this wiki article. I am given access to these online publications and a permanenet link will be provided at the conclusion of this IT overhaul. I shun when Jac16888 called this Association a "local dance club", since this Association has a professional staff, annual activities and a donor base. This is not some frat or hobby, but is driven by a core staff with strong passion for this sport. I urge you to visit the BYU_Ballroom_Dance_Company page, we are very similar to this program. Thanks for all your comments. Sambahips (talk) 10:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, please bear with me as I'm trying to figure out how to add references to wiki articles. The syntax is very confusing and I'm still slowly learning how to use the system. Sambahips (talk) 10:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, the fact that you say you are working with the associations staff gives you a pretty major conflict of interest, you shouldn't even be involved in this article, nor should they. Second, having professional staff, annual events and regulars doesn't make an organistaion notable, they need to be given coverage in independent 3rd party sources, which show notability. As for the BYU Ballroom Dance Company, it shows masses of notability. Its over 50 years old, has toured all over the world, competed at an international level, won a lot of awards, and all of this is sourced.--Jac16888 (talk) 11:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let it be known, that my allegiance is to the advance of this sport as an olympic sport, its only a recognized sport, not a medal sport as of yet. I am showing interest in this Association because I believe they have what it takes to become a strong organization overtime, dedicated towards developing strong competitors. "Working" with the association means I initiated communication with them regarding the whereabouts of their publications and why their website has been down all of a sudden in the past three weeks. Their website contains their competition results and the awards they've won and where they've toured in the United States. Also, FYI, this association competed against BYU dancers and placed higher in several different categories, yet this association is only a few years young vs BYU's 50 year program as you mentioned; all this is sourced. This is not some monkey-club but a strong program that has proven itself. Sambahips (talk) 12:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete [replace striken comment above] without prejudice for a disinterested third party who does not have a conflict of interest to recreate an improved article per Sambaship's comments. When User:Sambahips has a well-referenced article ready for publication, he should create it as User:Sambahips/Latin and Ballroom Dance Association and post a comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dance as described in Wikipedia:FAQ/Business. Let someone from that project actually create the article. If nobody from that project replies to his request within a week, I'll take a look at it. However, if the references are paper-based, hosted on a non-third-party source, or hosted on a blog, fan-site, or other unreliable source, it is very unlikely any editor will approve the article. The same goes if the references are mere lists, such as a newspaper that lists all meetings and classes in its local community. Oh, Sambahips, you should put a note on your user page clearly outlining your conflict of interest per Wikipedia:FAQ/Business. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 12:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update - if you are not working for them, but have only asked them for information, then you may not have a conflict of interest overall. Still, I would recommend drafting the article as a sub-page of your user page, then, after it is well-referenced and its notability will not be questioned, WP:MOVE it to the main article space. You should also ask the people at WikiProject Dance to comment on it before you make the move. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 12:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Davidwr, I think that is a reasonable suggestion about moving the article under my userpage until more sources can be found. The article is no where near being finished and there are more information that would lead to greater credibility, including third party sources from trustworthy sites. Now I just need to figure out how to move a page. Thanks. Sambahips (talk) 10:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since Samba has moved the page to his userspace, can someone delete Latin and Ballroom Dance Association, since it now innappropriately redirects to userspace. --Jac16888 (talk) 10:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DON'T DO THAT until the close of the AfD. See below. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but the afd is now past 5 days, it can be deleted--Jac16888 (talk) 15:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If an admin reads this, he can close the AfD and a minute later delete what's left in mainspace. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SPEEDY CLOSE as "voluntarily userfied." I have removed the AfD tag from the Userfied version and replaced the remaining redirect with an explanation of what is going on. I also restored the AfD tag to the mainspace pseudo-article. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete, A7 with a sprinkling of salt. The article text was substantively similar to previous versions that were speedied, making it obvious that the author of the latest version was a sock of the original author, Nealante (talk · contribs). Both accounts blocked. Blueboy 96 18:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nealante

Non-notable artist/producer who doesn't meet either WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC. Article was originally created by the article's subject and has been CSDed several times over the last few days. After repeated recreation and removal of CSD and autobiography tags the identical article has been recreated by a SPA user, Spartin (talk · contribs). The article makes many claims of collaborations but supplies no references to back them up. "Nealante" achieves 75 gHits. WebHamster09:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The consensus has spoken, all hail the consensus. (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 20:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oscar Dahlene

This is scope creep without a doubt. College football is not professional football, and articles on college football coaches with no independent sources really don't come close to satisfying the sourcing and notability requirements for living individuals. Guy (Help!) 09:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP (again) This is the third time that this article has been nominated for deletion. The first two times the consensus was KEEP, why should it change now?

"Scope Creep" doesn't apply--"it's not pro football", of course not. That's why it's a part of Wikipedia:WikiProject College football.
See previous discussions on this article at Talk:Oscar Dahlene
See similar discussions on similar articles with consensus of "Keep"
No new reason for deletion has been proposed

There is no new argument for deletion here, and all of the old ones still stand.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't think he's a living individual (given that he coached the 1910 season) but there are no independent sources, and every article needs those. Just because some articles in a class are notable does not mean they all are. Stifle (talk) 18:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And consensus can change. Stifle (talk) 18:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, consensus can change, but it usually doesn't change overnight--or even in a few months. However, editors can become weary from multiple rapid-fire deletion proposals.--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Does Ottawa University have a historically important program, or something? I'd say any coach at a big-name school would be automatically notable, but an article like this might be pushing things a bit. Zagalejo^^^ 18:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response You can read about it at Ottawa University Braves and learn about how they have been playing football since 1891 and their state-of-the-art Peoples Bank Field, credited as the best small-college football venue in the country. The school was a charter member of the Kansas Collegiate Athletic Conference and the forerunner of that conference was the first group to adopt a definite set of rules and regulations (previously schools set their own rules and you played by the rules of the home field school). As school sizes grew, the conference split to form the "Big Six" (now Big 12 and "Little Six" (now KCAC). Glad you asked.--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, were there any notable players on the team? Did the conference receive any attention outside of the Kansas area? I generally fall on the inclusion side of these debates, but I'm still not sure about this. There are lots of high school coaches who are more demonstrably notable than this guy. Zagalejo^^^ 04:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then go write an article about the high school coaches. Joe Paterno is more notable too, but that doesn't disqualify Jerry Kill.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's actually something to say about Jerry Kill. What about my first two questions? Zagalejo^^^ 04:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Confused What were the first two questions? Would you mind repeating?--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Were there any notable players on the team? Did the team (or conference as a whole) receive any attention outside of the Kansas area? If you can show that Ottawa had a reputation as one of the nation's elite teams, then I'd support keeping the article, even in the absence of biographical details about the coach. If not, though, I think we're going way below the common threshold for notability. We could still mention the coach somewhere else, but I don't see the need for an individual article about him. Zagalejo^^^ 16:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying!

Were there any notable players on the team?: I was unable to find any 1910 Ottawa football players in the NFL, but the NFL didn't form until 1920... I'll keep digging, but that's a tall order!
Did the team (or conference as a whole) receive any attention outside of the Kansas area?:Yes, both actually. The conference was the first conference to adopt a uniform set of rules. The school was one of 17 that, at the time of the big "rules changes" discussions to make football safer, wanted to actually cease football all together and replace it with Rugby or Soccer! (crazy, huh?) Along with BYU, Stanford, Missouri... it was in an old NYT article with a link I've sadly misplaced...

Does that help, at least for now?--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eh... I guess I'll go with weak keep. It's harmless, it's been expanded with actual biographical details, and it's potenitally useful for research. Plus, there's precedent for keeping articles like this. Eventually, we should have a broader discussion about notability for small college coaches, but until that happens, we might as well just leave the article be. Zagalejo^^^ 01:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — No reason has been given to override precedent, therefore, the article should remain. JKBrooks85 (talk) 19:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Miserably fails even the most open, general notability guidelines. Zero news sources available to establish notability. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 20:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Neutral Sorry Paul, but a NAIA coach from 1910 isn't notable. We should consolidate all the coaches with the short information we will ever obtain about them on the football article. MECU≈talk 02:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Let's say for a moment that I would agree that a coach from 1910 would not be notable, but the coach from 1909 might be and the coach from 1911 might also be. Now we're working on the project, we then find out that the two notable coaches get big articles but the little old 1910 coach does not. Now we've got a vacant space (i.e. a redline), and researchers may begin to wonder "Was football not played that year at the school? Why not?" or "We see that the school played that year, who was the coach?" and then we would find that notability could indeed arrive from not doing a superior job. Why was that coach's record different? At that point, the absence would become more of an issue than the presence. Completeness can be a very good thing... just something to think about.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment And, of course, there's the purpose of cross-reference research. I've added the standard game table for the one season he coached, including scores and opponents. Now suppose that someone is researching University of Kansas football, and runs into the 1910 season when KU was 6-1-1, and wants to know what the opponents were like and how those coaches performed for the season. It's possible this way.--Paul McDonald (talk) 05:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've changed to Neutral since there are many more references added now, but like some of the people below, most of the article isn't about the coach but about the season (his playing time the exception), for which the information could be better placed on "Early years of XXX football". But with the references and player information that couldn't belong elsewhere, and expansion beyond what I ever thought it could be, I'm torn. I could see the article being deleted, but kept as well. MECU≈talk 13:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As a stand alone article this isn't appropriate because of the reasons given by others above. This is the type of information that would be good to include in an article called Ottawa University Braves football or the like. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The first challenge with thast is this school has had 29 football coaches and a united page of all coaches would be rather clumsy. The second challenge is that the pages and information would be (at least I think) less likely to grow and interlinked. For example, Jerry Kill and Harold Elliott started out as just such a single page, and as research blossomed, they grew to robust pages of information.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both Kill and Elliott have coached NCAA D1 schools. Information on them actually exists. It seems that all we know about the Ottawa coaches (with a few exceptions) are their coaching records. Zagalejo^^^ 19:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Good Ol’factory. I'd also like to note that, of the entire article, only the first sentence (apparently unsourced) is actually about the subject of the article. The rest is about the performance of the team he coached as part of his career, and properly belongs in (for example) a history of that team. Jakew (talk) 13:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Fairly or unfairly, head coaches are judged by the success and failure of the teams they coach. This judgement based on their record extends to the hiring entity, the media, the fans, and the opponents.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That may be so, and it's doubtless true of people who work in many fields. However, it raises serious questions about whether the subject is notable independent of the team, or whether the team (including its history) is notable, and the coach warrants brief mention in this wider context. Jakew (talk) 17:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"*Comment Normally, teams are historically viewed by who the head coach was during that time (under "this coach" or "that coach") rather than a season by season basis.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I've been asked to review the changes made to the article, and I'm afraid that my position hasn't changed. Seraphimblade's comments of 13:55, 20 May 2008 sum up the problem well, as far as I'm concerned. I'm not opposed, however, to merging some of the material into a "history of XXX football" article. Jakew (talk) 14:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article is not even really about the subject (more about the team's performance, which should be covered in the team's article), and there don't appear to be significant secondary sources available to correct the problem. No independent sources, no article. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I was asked to reevaluate the article, and have done so. While it is true that an additional factoid (he was a college president for a few years too) and some sources have been added, it appears to be window dressing. The sources either (in a couple cases) have links which do not even work, and for those that do, mention the subject only in passing or trivially, or are primary. No substantial independent sources, no article. So to be clear, I stand by my rationale of delete for the version of the article as of this writing, or any other, as it appears as far as I can find, substantial independent sourcing on this subject simply does not exist. A bunch of Wikiproject members liking it does not change that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 13:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I found the one broken link to Emporia Gazette, simply a misspelling. What other links did not work? Everything links fine when I attempt on my PC...--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment The question of broken links was not my main concern, and yes they all work now. My main point was that the "sources" are trivial, passing mentions, in several cases only name drops, in others offering only a sentence or so with no substance. Substantial sourcing is required to support a separate article, not just "the guy got mentioned here or there." If you could show me a source that goes into substantial depth about the man, not the team, I would agree that a separate article on the man rather than a brief mention in the team's article is warranted. Otherwise, we should follow our sources' lead, and do as they do, mentioning him only briefly in context of the team. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment I wasn't exactly looking for you to repeat your opinion again, I just wanted to know what links you found that were broken so they could be fixed. But thanks!--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Yes, I am a member of the Wikiproject on College Football, so my opinion could be construed as biased. But, I am a member of the project because I am a fan of college football and I love learning everything I can about it....I even like learning about the coaches of the smaller schools. To fans of the sport, these coaches are notable. I would hate to see Wikipedia become a place where we can't learn about past coaches. One of the problems is that Wikipedia is geared more for the present, considering most sources come in the form of web site links. And naturally, there isn't going to be much available on these coaches in that form. But there are a lot of people who want to learn about these coaches. Seancp (talk) 20:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Information After further research, I have learned that he was a member of the 1908 9-0 undefeated and 1909 8-1 teams at the University of Kansas. To top it off, he later became the president of Pritchett College in Missouri, and apparently this school's first president used the facilities to complie major work on the history of the discovery of the Great Red Spot.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:Some things to consider":

Oscar Dahlene was not a NAIA coach since it was founded 1937
Sub dividing of NCAA did not happen around late 1930’s meaning he was coaching at the highest level of College Football at the time.
In the late 1890’s and early 1900’s teams we considered major powers were playing and losing to other schools that we now considered small college. For example Ohio State played and lost to Oberlin, Wittenberg and Ohio Wesleyan. West Virginia played and lost to West Virginia Wesleyan. Kentucky played and lost to Transylvania and Centre. If you look at the article Ottawa University played Kansas the year Dahlene coached them.
Why is Oscar Dahlene less significant than Arthur Smith (an article I wrote)? Smith only won one game and that was against a club team. Was it because the administration many years latter decided to play football at the highest level? Is it because 50 or so years later Maimi was able to hire several coaches that ended up in the College Football Hall of Fame so it became know as the Cradle of Coaches? I would guess that 99.999% of Miami University fans would not even know Smith coached at the school.

Why is Harry Jacoby a significant coach? He coached Boise State when they were a junior college and had a career losing record. If Ottawa University decided to move up to Division 1A? Is Oscar Dahlene now a significant coach because some administration 100 years later made a decision to emphases football?09er (talk) 01:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Other things need deleted too is not an argument that this does not. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I crossed out any of my above commit that deals with that. I still stand by my keep for the fact that in 1908 and 1909 he was playing at the highest level of American College Football and in 1910 he was coaching at the highest level of American College Football.09er (talk) 19:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hope that whoever looks at this now and sees a slight favor of delete realizes that most of those delete votes came before a lot of the new information was added about Dahlene becoming a college president and being a key member of the 1908/1909 KU football teams. Some people came in and made delete comments, then have not returned since the article has significantly improved.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Most of the new sources still miserably fail, but collectively, I think they assert some tiny modicum of notability; enough to keep it and hope it gets improved with some more RS so it doesn't get AfD'd again. In its current state, it's still a deletion waiting to happen. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 17:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As a general comment, please read Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Repeated nominations, I thought it might apply.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Mild form of WP:Hey Article now can be said to "come close to satisfying the sourcing and notability requirements for living individuals". Other stuff existing does seem to address the concern that "College football is not professional football" as far as how we treat it here. No concerns left. Seems a perfectly fine encyclopedia article to me. Mind you, I'm looking at a version only two added refs on from the version Celarnor is looking at above, so I guess YMMV. 86.44.28.186 (talk) 00:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't like forum shopping; if this received a Keep twice before I don't see this as a valid nomination, but I trust Guy so he must have some reason. From the discussion it sounds like the article has improved during this AfD. I also question the implication that it fails BLP when the man must be dead by now, and if he isn't then that's probably notable. Assuming good faith on some of the citations, they appear to be from independent verifiable sources. Clearly there are a lot of primary sources cited to document the content, but that should not detract from the notability, as long as we have adequate recognition from a sufficient number of secondary sources. --Kevin Murray (talk) 13:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It hasn't been to AfD before, as I understand it, just to be clear. I think the position is that it was nommed for speedy twice and not taken to AfD in light of arguments that it was a valid stub, met wp:bio, and accorded with a consensus demonstrated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Gottsch. McDonald went to ANI to complain about administrator behavior rising out of this article, so you may wish to view the nom as a slap on the wrist for doing so, or perhaps that's just where JzG came across it. In any case, it picked up a few delete votes based on the state of the article at the time, so seems a valid enough nom. 86.44.28.186 (talk) 15:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment not sure if it was a speedy delete or whatever before nominated, but you can read about it at Talk:Oscar Dahlene. Although the above "special contributions" supports the same position I do on this article, I want to clarify that it was not me and I would rather people register when making comments and changes. It's probably an oversight on the part of the editor, but I like being clear.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's an oversight? Registration isn't necessary to comment here, nor should it be. I don't have an account and never did. No need for paranoia.86.44.28.186 (talk) 18:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm not paranoid... it's just that sometimes other people are. No worries!--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep so far we have consistently held college presidents to be notable. Even of small colleges. DGG (talk) 16:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We've had a lot of good discussion on this one. Are we ready to come to a conclusion on this discussion? It's been over 5 days. Reference Deletion Discussion for policy. We have 7 editors in favor of "keep", 4 that support "delete", and two that modified their position of "delete" to either "Weak Keep" or "Neutral". I know that we're not looking for a "popular vote" to decide consensus, I just wanted to summarize the results.

I propose that in light of the discussions, the existing content changes, and the two previous discussions on notability that a consensus of KEEP has been reached. We should then keep the article and remove the AFD tag.

Any objections or discussion?? Anyone think that a consensus has not been reached, or that my summarization is incorrect or that I missed something?--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --JForget 23:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Mann (writer)

Non-notable journalist. Satisfies none of the criteria for notability mentioned for journalists at WP:BIO#Creative professionals. Also orphaned; only links are from respective dab page and some misguided links from some NYPD Blue pages intended for a different Ted Mann who writes TV episodes. —97198 talk 13:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 08:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An article in the New York Times notwithstanding, all his main gigs are non-notable, small local newspapers and magazines. No references, just a promo link to a resume/CV, and his blog. I don't see anything establishing notability here. KleenupKrew (talk) 02:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete A vanity article (check the name of the guy who created it and compare it to the name of Ted Mann's blog!). Ecoleetage (talk) 23:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Another non-notable journeyman journalist. Doesn't even have a book out. Not a noted author of any sort. Qworty (talk) 05:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Celtic Affluenza

Article fails WP:NN, WP:VER, WP:OR, and several other basic guidelines. Specifically:

It provides absolutely no sources to support the use of the term "Celtic Affluenza" in the purported context.
Even if it did, the notability of the term/concept is unasserted, and is flagged as such for several months.
A Google search returns ZERO results confirming the use of the term in any context. (All search hits are for this Wikipedia page and mirrors).
The article appears purely as Original Research in "support" of a similarly problematic Spam article - also flagged for AfD.
etc.

Guliolopez (talk) 08:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —Guliolopez (talk) 08:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NEO is enough for me here. AnturiaethwrTalk 14:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A portmanteau of a portmanteau? Delete per WP:NEO. TN‑X-Man 14:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable double-portmanteau neologism. No sources, and it is unlikely that there are any, reliable or not. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 15:21, May 17, 2008 (UTC)
Delete - WP:OR, WP:NEO; the list goes on and on. Doesn't meet WP:N so deletion is appropriate. Merenta (talk) 19:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator's reasons. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 02:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I tagged it originally, should have nominated it earlier.AleXd (talk) 08:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm a Celt (Welsh) and currently have a cold. Am I suffering from Celtic Influenza? Enaidmawr (talk) 23:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comic book original art

Original comic art deserves treatment in Wikipedia, but this is an inappropriate encyclopedic category. Anything useful here (there isn't much in the current article) would make more sense if merged into Comics or Comic book collecting (both of which already mention original art). The arbitrary focus on "comic book" as opposed to "newspaper comic" or any other kind is one of many reasons this article is better done away with than repaired. BTfromLA (talk) 07:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Is any comic book art not original? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.252.89.184 (talk) 21:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: In the comics subculture the phrase "original art" is used to differentiate the drawings made as part of the production process from the finished publications. So, typically, a collector of "original art" acquires a one-of-a-kind drawing in pen and ink, not a book or newspaper. BTfromLA (talk) 00:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – While this could possibly be merged into Comic book collecting, it would make a rather large section in an article that is pretty long already, and the subject matter is different enough that it would be slightly out of place merged into that article. This is an article that could definitely use some cleanup, but probably shouldn't be deleted. — λ (talk) 00:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep Is a topic which reliable sources exist and as Lamda observers a merger is not reasonable. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --JForget 23:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uplb student organizations

Just a list with lots of external links. Wikipedia is not a driectory. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 07:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY (just like the nominator stated). phøenixMøurning ( ^talk/_contribs ) 08:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
After all, that was a link farm. So I suggest a delete. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 12:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —Lenticel ^(talk) 14:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A large directory, but a directory nonetheless. TN‑X-Man 14:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment you might consider looking at List of University of the Philippines - Diliman student organizations as well.--Lenticel ^(talk) 14:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It looks very similar to the List of University of the Philippines - Diliman student organizations page already, so what else needs to be done? Joe_fob
Delete - a random, unmaintainable list per WP:LIST. Completely lacking good cites. Bearian (talk) 19:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UXO! AN UNPERCEIVED THREAT

This article subject might be notable, but the article is so poorly-written that it'd be better to delete and start it again. That is, if it's even notable, and not a soapbox/hoax article. Wakanda's Black Panther!♠/♦ 07:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Essay and fork of Unexploded ordnance. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 08:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and Bomb disposal. phøenixMøurning ( ^talk/_contribs ) 08:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete essay. WillOakland (talk) 08:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Essay on a topic which we already have an article on. Nick Dowling (talk) 11:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 11:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unsourced, poorly formatted essay on unexploded ordnance. We already have many articles covering this subject, we certainly do not need another one consisting entirely of synthesis. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 15:06, May 17, 2008 (UTC)
Delete an OR personal essay, poorly formatted with signs of page ownership. Wikipedia is not LiveJournal. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 17:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above (others have already raised good points). TomStar81 (Talk) 04:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as patent nonsense. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 06:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's not quite patent nonsense, but its a soapbox essay not appropriate to Wikipedia.-- danntm ^T _C 20:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: part of it incorporates some material from http://www.uxocanada.forces.gc.ca/Info/UXOTypes_e.asp without citing the source. http://www.uxocanada.forces.gc.ca is a Canadian government site, but its content is licensed freely for non-commercial use only, and proper attribution is required. Not sure if this is compatible with GFDL or not. The rest of it can be deleted for the reasons mentioned by RHaworth. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 10:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Poorly written, unsourced, the whole nine-yards. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 05:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (non-admin housekeeping closure) per CSD#G4 by User:Orangemike. WilliamH (talk) 16:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Framing Hanley

AfDs for this article:

Band which fails WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO. Has been nominated and deleted before (deleted a total of four times) (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Framing Hanley and the log) phøenixMøurning ( ^talk/_contribs ) 07:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nn band. Fails per WP:MUSIC.--Sting Buzz Me... 10:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete again, fail WP:MUSIC. Throw in the album The Moment (Framing Hanley album) too. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 23:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. CSD G4 - previously deleted after an XfD discussion. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this and The Moment (Framing Hanley album) for failing WP:MUSIC -- no reliable third party sources, et cetera. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete and Salt, clearly (one of many) recreation(s) of deleted material, CSD G4 tagged. WilliamH (talk) 14:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 01:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Groundwork Monitor Community Edition

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (web). Google hits show only its own official website except some trivial information exist in other website. Furthermore, most information were copied from its subpage NAHID 07:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this as spam. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 10:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree—it reads like an advertisement. It's also an orphan. --AnnaFrance (talk) 14:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete spam, created by a likely SPA Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 17:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Appears to be spam/advert. TN‑X-Man 00:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above. Trees Rock^MyGoal 01:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of cites and as likely spam.-- danntm ^T _C 20:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak move to Groundwork Monitor:~~ Google search for "groundwork monitor" with the quotes but without "community edition" yields many sources, such as this and this. Current version incorporates verbiage from copyrighted website and so should be deleted; if somebody wishes to write a new article from scratch, then it should probably be titled "Groundwork Monitor." 69.140.152.55 (talk) 10:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete - No evidence of notability, no reliable third-party sources, etc. Black Kite 00:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Order of Mata Nui

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is an in-universe repetition of the Bionicle articles plot sections without any information to justify its own article. As such, it is purely duplicative and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 07:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Sources seem to point towards forum posts and the like. As nom said, article duplicates material found elsewhere. Article does not meet WP:PLOT. TN‑X-Man 14:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per our First pillar, i.e. consistent with a specialized encyclopedia on Bionicle of which published version exists. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as plot summary based upon unreliable sources, thus failing verifiability and providing no evidence of notability. Jakew (talk) 18:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As indicated above, published reliable sources exist from which the article can be improved and verfied. Sincrely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The link which you kindly provided above is to an Amazon search for "Bionicle Encyclopaedia". Even if the results are encyclopaedias in the conventional sense of the word, what evidence is there that any of these books contain information about the Order of Mata Nui? For that matter, if they do provide information, how do you know that it constitutes significant coverage and not, say, trivial mention? Jakew (talk) 19:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The Bionicle Encyclopedia demonstrates that Bionicle subjects are consistent with what Wikipedia is, i.e not just a general encyclopedia, but also specialized encylopedia. The fact that in addition to that book, there are other reference books about Bionicle, this article has realistic potential. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm afraid that we evidently disagree on our interpretations of the first pillar, LGRdC. Personally, I do not take it to mean that we should incorporate equivalent content (or in this case, speculative content) to every single work calling itself an "encyclopaedia". I do take it to mean that we can cover specialised subjects beyond those covered by a general encyclopaedia, but those subjects must be notable (as established by appropriate sources), and verifiable in a manner appropriate to a tertiary source. Although I think it reasonable to relax the burden of evidence somewhat when there is evidence that sources actually do exist, I believe it is inappropriate to keep an article in the hope that they might exist. Jakew (talk) 20:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Perhaps, because I take the First pillar to mean that a combination paperless general encyclopedia, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs can and should in fact contain just about anything worthy enough to be in actual published (not just other wikis, but published books) general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and alamanacs as a truly invaluable reference guide that provides a real comprehensive service to humanity. Due to our ever expanding community, I do not believe we have to worry about growing so large that we cannot somehow maintain these articles. Given that in addition to the encyclopedia that turned up on the Amazon.com search, I think it is reasonable that a thorough read of those sources (obviously something that cannot be done by volunteers in a five day AfD, but we don't need to as there's no deadline) and reviews of those sources had a realistic potential to allow for a better article. Plus, some of these fictional franchises that are still popular keep having additional elements coming out that only adds to their notability. Plus, for better or worse, these policy pages on things like verifiability seem to change in some manner every time I look at them. On one hand, it's nice that our policies are fluid, but on the other hand the fact that anyone can alter them at any given time makes it sometimes hard to know when someone cites them which version he or she is referring to and whether or not that version has consensus. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources means no notability. Graevemoore (talk) 03:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have seen no evidence to suggest definitively that this subject is not covered significantly in independent reliable sources nor that it is not notable. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - That argument flies in the face of thousands of years of philosophical consideration about burden of proof. It is fallacious to assume that something exists without evidence to indicate that it does, and prudent to assume that something does not exist given that same lack. You are attacking the basic precepts of thought and logic. Graevemoore (talk) 17:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Evidence has been provided that suggests sources are likely to exist. AfDs consider potential, not just the current state. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - The existence of first-party and licensed material has no bearing on the existence of independent sources. None whatsoever. Graevemoore (talk) 18:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fight Celtic Affluenza

This article has multiple serious issues, and should be deleted. To pick just two:

It fails WP:NN and WP:GROUP by a long margin. It has been flagged for some time for asserting no notability, and provides NEITHER primary nor secondary sources to support the notability of this "movement": a google search returns precisely ZERO results on primary sources (save for Wikipedia and mirrors), and there is also ZERO independent secondary coverage.
It fails WP:NOTMYSPACE and WP:WWPIN, as the page appears to be the ONLY manifestation of this "movement" online. The "article" is a thinly veiled use of Wikipedia as webspace to promote this "movement". There are serious problems with tone and content in this area. (For example the text states: "Anyone can participate by simply printing and distributing cards and stickers". While helpfully providing the stickers.)

Article also substantively fails WP:OR, WP:VER, WP:SPAM, WP:COI (creator is WP:SPA and likely promoter of this "movement") and myriad other guidelines. This page is such a blatantly bad candidate article that I considered flagging for speedy delete. However, given that it's been around for a while, it possibly requires confirmed consensus. Would however recommend a quick turnaround on AfD discussion. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Celtic Affluenza. Guliolopez (talk) 07:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —Guliolopez (talk) 07:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The nom says it all, really. AnturiaethwrTalk 14:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing to add to nom's excellent reasoning. TN‑X-Man 14:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Reluctant to say per nom, but sometimes that is all that can be said. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 02:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.AleXd (talk) 08:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I live in Ireland and have watched the Celtic Tiger make a small minority rich while turning the country into a cesspool for everyone else. I have however never heard of "Fight Celtic Affluenza" movement outside this article. User:Gerrynobody (talk) 04:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Flowerparty^☀ 22:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zach Tyler Eisen

Let's see, where to begin. First of, this is a non notable voice actor. A handful of non notable roles and one or two notable ones, but that's it. Also, I can find virtually no reliable third party sources with any information on this person. Just your average media sites like IMDB, TV.com, etc., which all say the same things, more or less. Also, this article appears to have been proded in the past. It expired but for some reason was never deleted. Also, this article was apparently nominated for deletion before but never deleted. I cannot think of what makes this guy notable or where to find information. An article is not needed for every actor out there. There are plenty of actors, probably some with more roles than him, that don't have articles on Wikipedia. So, yeah, those are my reasons for deleting this page. SkepticBanner (talk) 06:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BIO#Entertainers. I'd think being the main protagonist in a popular children's program on a popular children's station is notable. Same thing goes with the show Little Bill. The article does have bare references, though... so we'd definitely have to find some other sources. phøenixMøurning ( ^talk/_contribs ) 08:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - voice of the main character in an extremely popular series. I believe it's notable, and WP:Bio seems to agree. Canterbury Tail talk 12:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think the Avatar: The Last Airbender role alone fulfills the first bullet point of WP:ENTERTAINER; really can't speak for the rest. AnturiaethwrTalk 14:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - Clearly fulfils WP:ENTERTAINER. asenine ^{say what?} 15:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With the one primary role, and multiple secondary roles, he seems to meet the criteria for entertainers. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll cover each of those 3 points. For the last one, it is easy enough to see that he isn't a unique actor. For the 2nd one, he doesn't seem to have a very large fanbase. For the first one, I fail to see the significant roles he has had. You might consider his role as Aang significant. But that is a significant role, not significant roles. Two of his movie roles aren't notable. As for the Ant Bully, that movie is mentioned mostly it seems in lists or as an example in articles about something else totally. At least half the the Ant Bully article's references aren't even specifically about it. That seems to qualify the Ant Bully as an average film. These days, it seems films get article on Wikipedia without lots of third party notability. As for Little Bill and The Backyardigans, those are small shows that little kids like to watch. Average little kid shows. I ultimately fail to see the notability here. A role in a notable TV show, I admit, a role in a film, very minor roles in two films, and some roles in non notable TV shows. That seems to add up to one notable role and a few non notable roles, and the I also fail to see any article specifically about him. According to the notability guideline, multiple notable roles are needed. This kid seems to have one notable role. If this article does qualify as notable, it seems it barely does. I'll admit I'm no expert on Wikipedia. Never have been. But in this instance, I think I know what I'm doing. SkepticBanner (talk) 00:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So you're claiming that because his other notable shows are kids shows that they're not notable...? Why is this? Little Bill is a show that ran for five years on Nikelodeon (specifically Nick Jr.). Saying that he doesn't have a large fan base could be considered weasle words, as it's a generalization. Same thing goes with The Backyardigans. Again, just because you don't watch them/think they're popular (eerily similar to something like WP:POINT) doesn't mean they aren't. I'm in full support of every keep here, and if it will make you happy, I'll find you some sources. phøenixMøurning ( ^talk/_contribs ) 02:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, one of the possible criteria specifically said a large fan base. So I simply used those words. Do tell me what makes every TV show in existence notable. If you feel Little Bill is notable, please explain. Same goes for The Backyardigans. Yes, it would make me happy to see some sources. I mean, have those shows received awards like Avatar? In my book, Avatar qualifies as very notable due to the number of news articles about it and some other things. I am not claiming that the shows are non notable because they are kids shows. I just don't see why they are notable. I don't need to prove they aren't notable if it can't be proven they are notable. Same goes for his fan base. Can you show he has a large enough one? If not, no need for me to show he doesn't have one. I also take offence at your suggestion that I am deliberately messing up Wikipedia. I've long felt this kid isn't notable enough. I just decided to do something now. I just don't think that every voice actor with a small handful of roles, with at most two notable ones, but probably one notable one, needs an article on Wikipedia. If a role is automatically considered notable because it was a starring one, and I don't think this is the case, then I can name off the top of my head an actor who has starred in a few movies who doesn't have his own article on here. Tell me: What makes this kid notable enough? And as I said before, if he does pass, he barely does. SkepticBanner (talk) 03:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, let me apologize if I came off giving the notion that you're "messing up Wikipedia." Wasn't my intention. Secondly, like I said before at WP:ENTERTAINER. The very first bullet states that they must have "had significant roles or been featured multiple times in notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions." I think you and I could both agree that being the protagonist in a popular children's program is definitely notable. I'm basing his notability on the fact that among children he has a recognizable fan base. Fans of the show are obviously going to know the protagonist. And to answer your question, yes. Little Bill has won awards from many respectable parties (see here). phøenixMøurning ( ^talk/_contribs ) 04:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That certainly improves the case to some extent for Little Bill, and by extension his role in it, being notable. But I still think that news articles are needed. I mean third party sources that have actually written about the subject. Also, to be honest, it wasn't my understanding that he had a large fanbase among children. I've not really seen that many fans of him. If you can show that he has appeared in more than one notable production, then that definitely improves the case for his notability. But I would say that in the event it is determined he satisfies notability requirements (and it looks like he will), it won't be by much. Something just makes me feel that he isn't as notable as what you generally see on Wikipedia, though this isn't that relevant. I just get the feeling that notability and verifiability standards on Wikipedia have become a little bit lax. While I now doubt this article will be deleted, I still support deletion. Also, a bit off topic, and not related to this AFD, but what does one do when an article that was proded and the prod expired but the article wasn't deleted do? And since this article was supposed to be deleted, why is it here? It's all a bit confusing for me. One idea floated around is that the article was deleted, and later recreated. Then somebody took the courtesy of confusing people by placing the old articles AFD on the new articles talk page. Still, I think that there simply isn't enough information on him at all. Virtually nothing other than a filmography can be made from reliable sources and like I said, I can't find much third party notability of him or most of his roles. But I'm seeing that his Little Bill role might be notable. I just never heard much about Little Bill, despite watching Nickelodeon quite a bit. Well, I'll still try to make my case for deletion, but if the article is considered notable enough, then I won't go against that. SkepticBanner (talk) 04:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, prod'ding something doesn't necessarily mean it'll be deleted. I'm assuming your talking about the February 2007 prod'ding of the article. If the tag is on there for five days and no one objects (an objection usually is just someone removing the tag, which was the case) then the article is deleted. If someone objects, it sometimes is taken up at an AfD discussion, but that wasn't the case here. See WP:PROD for more info. No hard feelings from before, right? phøenixMøurning ( ^talk/_contribs ) 04:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't paying any attention to this article back then. I must have misinterpreted what I saw. I think somebody might have objected without my noticing. Yeah, that's it. But back on topic, my case for deletion rests above. Your case for keeping is also above. I think we'd best get back to debating about whether he is notable enough or not. SkepticBanner (talk) 19:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New York State Route 21A

Unreferenced article, possibly a hoax. Was tagged with PROD as such, detagged by article creator with no explanation given. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 05:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - According to GoogleMaps, this road does not "come out to save people" time in driving from Wayland to Bristol. [40] There is a New York State Route 21, but no evidence exists as far as I can see for this route. --Oakshade (talk) 09:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - It doesn't appear to be a hoax [41]. One of the ghits is New York State Route 364, which includes a (seemingly unreferenced) mention of 21A. The article - in its current form reads like nonsense, but I don't think it's a hoax, nor is it unreferencable (is that a word?) -Seidenstud (talk) 09:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The discussion in NYS 364 is about an historically designated route on the east side of Canandaigua Lake. This article appears to be about a route entirely southwest of the lake. --Dhartung | Talk 17:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The pages listed on those Google searches all seem to be about freeway/expressway exits that are designated 21A which are unrelated to this allged route, WP mirrors or, as stated above, referring to a different route in Suffolk County (that's a different part of New York state for the NY geographically impaired).--Oakshade (talk) 19:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The Suffolk County reference (a doctor's address, if I recall) must be a typo for Route 25A; Google Maps comes up with no results for that address. Powers ^T 14:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reference in our NY364 article is to a former routing, so it's possible that 21A existed in the past. I checked NYSDOT's 2006 traffic counts and there is no Route 21A listed. It's possible that it was a former designation being re-commissioned. The Upstate New York Roads roadfan site doesn't mention any current or former 21A. User:TwinsMetsFan added the 21A info to the NY364 article in March; I'll ask him to drop by and let us know where it came from. Powers ^T 15:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless references are found, which they probably won't as this reads like the description of a fantasy road (a roadgeek what-if pastime). --Dhartung | Talk 17:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable. --Rschen7754 (T C) 17:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Very possibly a hoax. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 18:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No references, poor article quality overall and no proof this highway designation exists. Imzadi1979 (talk) 18:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reference recently added has been determined by Nick at Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#NYS_Route_21A... to be written by the article creator, Check77 failing WP:RS and WP:SPS. With that, there are still no references in the article reinforcing the lack of proof of this highway's supposed existence. Imzadi1979 (talk) 01:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V. --Polaron | Talk 00:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As failing WP:V and per Rschen7754 and Dhartung. Edison (talk) 05:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Going the wrong way on a one-way street! Ecoleetage (talk) 23:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ delete: the article is unsourced, and not well written. By the way, I am not entirely clear how the New York state highway system works. It appears that there are "touring" routes, which are all numbered, and there are state DOT-owned highways. New York State Route 21A is not a "touring" route; even though there seems to be very substantial overlap between the state-owned highway network and the touring-route system, according to the NYSDOT 2006 Highway Mileage Summary Reference Material "[t]ouring route status DOES NOT imply highway ownership." I would interpret that to mean that there may be NYSDOT roads that are not part of the Touring Route Number System, and so I can offer no opinion on whether the road actually exists or not. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 03:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, some NYSDOT-maintained roads do not carry touring route numbers. (They do have reference route numbers, though, which are three-digit numbers in the 900-range.) A state route numbered "21A", however, would necessarily be a touring route, by definition. Powers ^T 13:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete while NYS has a tendency for alphabet soup in their road names, these variations often turn up at the least in Google Maps 17 M and 17K, among others whereas this one does not and there's no evidence outside Wikipedia that it exists. That said, I'll be in the area at the upcoming weekend and am happy to see if I can find anything about an old road of tht name _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 03:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Totally unverifiable. seicer | talk | contribs 23:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Hoax. MookieZ (talk) 20:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax. There is no Napay, NY. A Google Map does not reveal it. I have lived upstate for over 25 years, and have visited every county. Bearian (talk) 19:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PeterSymonds (talk) 13:29, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sinkha

article does not assert notability, no secondary sources listed, perhaps it could be merged into a broader article? Not even sure if one exists. Napsterbater (talk) 04:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete— Does not appear to be notable. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 05:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it doesn't have enough context. Its lack of context suggested further that the subject isn't notable. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 12:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It has a few broad references but isn't that notable. As the previous contributor notes, the article is very small which suggests it will be nothing more than a stub. Artene50 (talk) 07:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - benefit of the doubt, as noted below. Will probably expand at some point. Black Kite 00:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Geetanjali Shree

no secondary sources, unresolved notability, unsubstantiated claims, no indication of notability for the award she won. Seems like she could be notable, but the few assertions are unclear, and unsubstantiated. Napsterbater (talk) 04:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, googling in english and hindi indicates notability: see [42], [43], [44], etc. --Soman (talk) 10:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. There looks to be substantial coverage of her (in English, at least; Hindi's beyond me), but all I can find is behind paygates (like Soman's first source) or in Gbooks where I can't get at it. I'd give her the benefit of the doubt. AnturiaethwrTalk 14:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Substantial in news media. Apparently she's the first Hindi author to be signed to HarperCollins. Pburka (talk) 19:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Flowerparty^☀ 22:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Janet Ross

Article does not meet notability requirements for creative professionals, no significant and multiple secondary sources, unsubstantiated claims. Napsterbater (talk) 04:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 06:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like spam...Modernist (talk) 17:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 04:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC) (Non-admin closure)[reply]

The Other Place (book)

~~Fails WP:BK. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 04:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

Withdrawing nom per the references provided later. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 04:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the references were already there -- they just weren't wikified. —Quasirandom (talk) 04:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Result was Speedy close, wrong venue. This belongs at WP:RFD. - Revolving Bugbear 14:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boeing 797

AfDs for this article:

Deletion was already supported in 2005; the article Boeing 797 is back again and still has no substantiated references and is not even explained in the redirect article; see Boeing 797 talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rolypolyman (talk • contribs)

Keep - This is not an article, but a redirct. The redirect is in place simply because Boeng's next airliner is likey to be on of the Yellowstone projects, and likely to be assigned "797". Since this is apparenly not understandable to some without an explicit cited explanation, we could redirect it instead to Boeing 7x7, which simply explaines what the designations mean, and lists the current ones. However, "797" is not mentioned there either, so this page is likely to be AFDed again in the future. - BillCJ (talk) 06:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep and Remove Tag - as noted above it's a redirect, and seemingly a useful one as well. However it currently doesn't work due to the addition of the tag. I say speedy keep and remove the tag so it can go back to be useful and working again. Canterbury Tail talk 12:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Flowerparty^☀ 22:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Counties of New York City

Borderline incomprehensible article created by a problem user. Duplicates information found in Borough (New York City), Administrative divisions of New York, and elsewhere (note that the links to the county names all lead to redirects, since the counties are coterminous with the NYC boroughs and have no separate governments of their own). The redirect created by the author at County (New York City) also should be deleted.‎ Deor (talk) 03:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Borough (New York City), where the relationship between the boroughs and the counties is explained. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I would have done that if I thought that the title was a likely search term. Perhaps I just don't have enough imagination in that regard. Deor (talk) 04:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Someone thought of it, and even if they seem to be confused as to the boundaries and chronology of NYC in 1664, this may prevent the next good soul from writing the same article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. An unusual but plausible search term. At any rate, in 1664 New York City was not a five-county municipality.... --Dhartung | Talk 17:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 05:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. No useful content, but could be a search term. Bearian (talk) 19:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Flowerparty^☀ 22:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Double Cross: The Code of the Catholic Church

Reason for nomination. Lack of notability. Few hits, most from extremist websites. Antonrojo (talk) 03:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:BK sets out five guidelines, of which a notable book should meet at least one. I don't see it doing that. ◄Zahakiel ► 12:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A lot of this appears to be WP:OR. Article starts by summarizing the book, but then shifts to making claims outright. TN‑X-Man 15:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- not just because it is WP:OR and he's just about as notable for having his flight to Munich cancelled as for his book from what I found, it looks as though Theo Press has only one book, his, which strongly suggests it is self-published.--Doug Weller (talk) 15:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. (I am the article creator) As to WP:BK - The book has been reviewed in several media. I first learned about Double Cross in a review which appeared in Roman Forum (together with the Pope’s book on Jesus!). I have since found that Catholic media such as the Catholic Herald have written about it. As to WP:OR – I would like to know which bits are “making claims outright” which are unacceptable. The article is meant to be descriptive only. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Serioso (talk • contribs) 10:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If the book has indeed been reviewed by several established organizations and entities, it may indeed be notable. I'd be willing to consider that. The article, however, does not state this, nor does it give evidence of this. The burden of demonstrating notability is placed upon the text of the articles themselves and thus, by necessity, the editors who create and maintain them. If you can provide reliable sources of review, perhaps the OR concerns can be fixed, or the article reworded to satisfy the community... but you need to cite these sources before this discussion is closed, it can't just be claimed. ◄Zahakiel ► 13:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI see there is a reference -- a pretty useless one -- to The Roman Forum used in the article. It's unverifiable, so can't be used for any purpose. The Roman Forum is some sort of online newspaper -- see [45] - I searched the site with Google and could find nothing under either the name of the book or the author. As for outright claims, it looks as though everything after the first sentence in 'the Church and the Jews' is an outright claim.--Doug Weller (talk) 14:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of reliable references. Fails WP:BK, and likely WP:OR.-- danntm ^T _C 21:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Roman Forum is not an online but a printed magazine. The Catholic Herald which reviewed the book is a weekly published in the UK. The book has also been reviewed by the Midwest Book Review, the Library Journal, The Newsletter of the Secular Society in the UK, the Newsletter of the German Humanist Society.

As to the suggestion concerning outright claims - the article is purely informative and does not make any claims of its own - whatever other people´s feelings are about books which criticise the Catholic Church. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.159.6.64 (talk) 15:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In the absence of reliable and independent sources. The Wayback machine doesn't archive anything from theromanforum.com, the citation thereto is incomplete so can't be verified readily even if I could find a paper source, and a search for the book excluding wikis, blogs, and most for sale sites came up with exactly 10 hits, none of which are reliable sources. (The Catholic News Agency one is only a hit because of a reader postpended comment.) GRBerry 13:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you can find the links for the LJ review and the Catholic Herald review, and they are substantial reviews, it might well justify the article. I think that The Herald is the leading UK Catholic publication. DGG (talk) 22:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Flowerparty^☀ 22:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Theresa Vucko

Appears to fail WP:N as she has only played very small roles...I couldn't find any news hits, and she doesn't appear to even be listed at the IMDB (I know, not a reliable source, but does provide some confirmation) LegoTech·(t)·(c) 02:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 5 Google results (quotes).[46] - Icewedge (talk) 02:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as the article failed to establish how notable is this artist. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 04:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Australian ghits don't even confirm that she exists. Being 'an actor' may avoid speedy but there's no evidence she's notable _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 05:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, see no notability here. Punkmorten (talk) 09:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a speedy as that many credits is an assertion of notability, but nothing suggests that she might meet WP:BIO. Stifle (talk) 16:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no evidence of encyclopedic importance. --Stormbay (talk) 22:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Flowerparty^☀ 22:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Laquidara

fails to establish how this radio personality is notable. No mention of awards, industry contributions, or syndication that would indicate that he is notable outside of the local market. Zero verifiable 3rd party references. Rtphokie (talk) 02:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: And zero attempt to find any, it seems. "Charles Laquidara" returns 358 hits on Google News [47]. Heck, his on-air ID back in the late 1970s and early 1980s gets 5 G-news cites [48]. Ravenswing 02:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:BIO says nothing about Google News hits establishing notability, citations demonstrating wide coverage from 3rd party sources does. Are none of these Globe articles worth citing? The article still has no references. Most of these Google News hits are from the Boston Globe. Is this person notable outside of Boston? WP:BIO calls for widely recognition for contribution to a person's industry and/or awards or some other honor to demonstrate notability. He's been covered frequently in the Globe but so have most other local DJs. --Rtphokie (talk) 03:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Yes, the Globe certainly accounted for many of those hits, but I'm missing the point; as one of the most respected and prominent newspapers in the country, it definitely counts as a reliable source. That being said, the fundamental criterion of WP:BIO (quite often ignored in the rush to establish the "Additional criteria" as the be-all and end-all) is "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." Deletion policy holds very strongly that attempts to improve the article should be taken before filing AfD, which flies in the face of the inference that G-News hits are worthless because they haven't been cited in the article yet. So what stopped you? Ravenswing 13:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep as article now has many references from such reliable secondary sources as TIME, Newsweek, The New York Times, and The Boston Globe as well as less famous sources. 30 year career as a top-rated host in a major American city plus significant national attention means this subject easily vaults the verifiability and notability hurdles. Indeed, the article needs expansion to cover his impact on the anti-Apartheid movement in more detail. - Dravecky (talk) 05:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Flowerparty^☀ 22:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Drew Krowsoski

Article about non-notable golfer apparently written by subject himself. I cannot find any non-trivial third-party web references to either Drew Krowsoski or Andrew Michael Krowsoski DAJF (talk) 02:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. —DAJF (talk) 02:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —DAJF (talk) 02:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn. No WP:RS so fails per WP:V.--Sting Buzz Me... 10:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article seems unencylopædic; also, nothing in Google News. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 09:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing useful here for an encyclopedia. --KenWalker | Talk 20:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as the creation of a banned user. If anyone finds this a worthwhile topic and wants to create it from scratch, this deletion does not preclude such a decision. --B (talk) 19:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Family of Barack Obama

The only reason any of these subjects are mentioned is because of their connection to Barack Obama. As is often brought up in these discussions, notability is not inherited and none of the subjects are otherwise notable. Obama's coffee mug is also often mentioned in articles about him but we don't need to start an article called "Coffee mug of Barack Obama."

Update: The user that created this article, DianeFinn (talk · contribs) has been blocked by Alison (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) as yet another sockpuppet of Dereks1x (talk · contribs).[49]. This article is no different than the previous article on Malia Obama created by the same banned user which was speedily deleted for the same reasons. See [50] for the archived discussion. All of the same arguments apply here. Loonymonkey (talk) 01:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Barrack Obama, if not already there. Otherwise, simply delete. Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 02:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c) Delete. While Sen. Obama's family connections are certainly of importance, the appropriate place for them to be documented is his article (and I don't think there's any useful information on that in this one, at least not as it stands). While certain members of his family may be notable apart from him (Michelle Obama, for instance), I'm seeing no notability for his family taken as a whole. AnturiaethwrTalk 02:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Barack Obama if not already there, otherwise delete. Notability is not automatically inherited. JIP | Talk 03:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge [insert copy/paste of others' reasons here] I don't want to get blocked for blatant plagiarism of the others' reasons :P And, I'm lazy......
Delete: notability cannot be inherited. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 04:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the possible exception of Auma Obama - running a children's trust may place her into the notable category independent of her family connections. I'll check it out more in-depth, but there wouldn't be anything wrong with merging it into Barack Obama for now anyhow. Kate (talk) 14:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Improve article and keep The Barack Obama article is already too big. There is much family life information out there, including Barack's life. If we put it in his article, then space limitations limit info to parents' name and his schools attended. There is much more. This title allows more info rather than a little in the "Early Life of Barack Obama" section of the Barack Obama article. I can see delete vote reasons but consider my reasons, which are not apparent at first, but logical if you think about it. DianeFinn (talk) 14:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Notability is not inherited. KleenupKrew (talk) 16:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per a combination of inherited notability and verifiable real world significance. Magazines, TV shows, and newspapers all have featured the family of this major presidential candidate. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure), as per general-consensus

Moss Motorsports, LLC

The subject of this article only exists through a PR blurb. Sources are fine, but the article itself lacks substance and notability. D-Day (talk) 14:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TerriersFan (talk) 01:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Confirmed future NASCAR racing team. Also its founded by Randy Moss. If you see List_of_NASCAR_teams#Craftsman_Truck_Series, all Craftsman Truck Series racing teams have articles. Also has several news stories about it [51]-- Coasttocoast (talk) 05:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those are teams that have attempted races though. This team has not. Furthermore, there have been teams with Terance Mathis, the Wayans Brothers, Hank Aaron, and Ray Lewis announced as owners, yet they never ran, and they never had articles. As of now, this team is nothing more than a press release. That's why it should be deleted. --D-Day (talk) 12:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Randy Moss for now - it can be restored if and when the team becomes notable - presumably by competing in something.

Merge to Randy Moss. Team formation just announced April 30, 2008, won't even start racing until later in the year, therefore not (yet) notable per WP:CRYSTAL. KleenupKrew (talk) 02:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Flowerparty^☀ 22:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mario characters in other media

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and is just a compilation of all the characters of various non-nintendo media featuring mario. That information belongs in the respective article, not listed here. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no different from the "in popular culture" sections that have been deleted from Wikipedia articles. JIP | Talk 03:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

so far from their having been deleted, most of them are still there, or merged into the articles, and most recent popular culture article afds have been closed as keep; the older deletions are slowly being upgraded and restored. DGG (talk) 22:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. These characters should be listed, if at all, in the articles about the respective movies, television shows, or comics, not in this one collective article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per Wikipedia:Lists (discriminate and verifiable) and Wikipedia:Five pillars (consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning fictional topics with importance in the real world). Consistent with "in popular culture" articles that have been kept. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't know what the lists wants to accomplish other than compiling trivial facts. I agree that if these characters are to be listed anywhere, they should be listed in the respective article for the medium, not in an all-encompassing list that adds no real value to the encyclopedia. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the list and merge the information into relevant articles if reliable sources can be found. This is essentially a huge, unverified trivia section, and these are generally to be discouraged. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 15:30, May 17, 2008 (UTC)

they are only discouraged in favor of including the material elsewhere in the articles if possible, not being deleted. DGG (talk) 22:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:V and WP:PSTS, as it entirely lacks secondary sources (and sometimes even primary sources). Also, although the list may have defined inclusion criteria, there are a potentially infinite number of lists with defined inclusion criteria, and we have to consider whether the inclusion criteria are in fact meaningful and notable. In my view, this is merely a compilation of trivia. Hence, in my view, the page as a whole fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Jakew (talk) 16:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This argument can be used to delete every list in Wikipedia. Its the argument which is indiscriminate. DGG (talk) 22:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I simply need to explain it better. Consider the difference between "computer games released in the 1980s" and "computer games released on the last Thursday of November". If you were writing an article about the former, it wouldn't be all that difficult to identify sources that actually discuss the subject, because the concept is meaningful and people have actually written about it. That doesn't change when you insert the words "list of" at the start of the title, because the inclusion criteria for that list have a meaningful existence outside of WP, and are a recognised and documented concept. This is not, I suspect, true of the latter: the inclusion criteria may be well-defined, but they are completely arbitrary.

Now compare this article with, say, List of deserts. The concept of a desert is notable (ie., it has been noted) and has a well-understood meaning. Can the same be said of a "Mario character in other media"? Jakew (talk) 22:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

see below, I didn't actually !vote till now. The Mario characters are also a perfectly well defined list & are notable to many people. The places where the y appear are i notable media. They both have an excellent very sharp definition, without even the ambiguity about what is a desert. The characters have a meaningful existence outside Wikipedia, and so do the places they appear outside the series. I agree that Mario characters released in the month of January and their appearances of British TV would not be a good article. Are you judging on the basis of your evaluation of the ultimate intrinsic importance to the world of these characters--I'd agree with your judgement of artistic or cosmic significance, but that still isnt a good reason. DGG (talk) 01:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An article on 'Mario in pop culture' is enough through cultural impact. Martarius (talk) 19:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pure collection of trivia. Zero Kitsune (talk) 15:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Trivia is encyclopedic. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Trivia section are discouraged under Wikipedia guidelines. Zero Kitsune (talk) 02:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Some of which do not actually have consensus. Plus, the article does not even have "trivia" in it's title and nor is a section of a particular article. Thus, it is not a trivia section, but a discriminate list that demonstrates the notability of Mario characters by cataloging there appearances and use in other media. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too much trivia for me.-- danntm ^T _C 01:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Trivia is encyclopedic and Wikipedia is not paper. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you trying to make a joke? I missed if you are, and if your not, Trivia encyclopedias prove nothing with regard to wikipeda policy. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't paper is more of an excuse, than an actual reason. It's pretty clear the consensus is to delete the article. Le Grand, why are you posting that Amazon link more than once? People can see the link once, it doesn't need to be posted in two replies. RobJ1981 (talk) 05:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Completely unencyclopedic. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. KleenupKrew (talk) 11:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:UNENCYCLOPEDIC is a subjective and a weak rationale for deletion. Wikipedia is a compendium of general, specialized encyclopedias and almanacs and this list is consistent with what Wikipedia is. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd be interested in seeing how a "list of Mario characters in other media" could possibly be a good fit for any specialized encyclopedia or almanac, including one solely dedicated to Mario. KleenupKrew (talk) 21:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - A verifiable, organized, and discrminate list as this would indeed have a good home in any such place. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - How is this incoherently named article organized or discriminate? What is "other media"? Other than what? KleenupKrew (talk) 02:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        The coherently named organized and discriminate article has a specific criteria (Mario characters) and "other media" obviously means other than Mario titled video games. It really goes without saying. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as better than separate lists for the different media. Seems documented. Not indiscriminate, for it deals with the use of notable characters in various notable places. No more indiscriminate than List of castles for the general articles & List of castles in Lithuania for the countries with enough castles & information to justify it. Either is acceptable, and so is this, but I'd have no objection to splitting it. Admittedly, I am interested in castles and not these, but that's not relevant. DGG (talk) 01:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No refs at all. Buc (talk) 17:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The films, television shows, and comics are references. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Flowerparty^☀ 22:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Warren

Claims notability by being the founder and the namesake for a community, and there's effectively a hangon present at the bottom of the page; therefore, definitely asserts notability. However, this guy doesn't appear at all notable; it's simply that he's mentioned in a genealogy book and (although the article doesn't use it) in a local history book (see Warrensville Township's section in Defunct townships of Cuyahoga County, Ohio): passing mentions don't make him at all notable. Nyttend (talk) 01:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Every township has a name. He may be mentioned in the article on the township, but this doesn't confer notability. --Dhartung | Talk 06:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I concur that there has to be a lot more done to establish notability than founding a township. -- Atama ^chat 23:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No evidence that this one fighter passes WP:BIO. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adriano Santos

The subject of the article is an un-notable martial arts practitioner. The only match he has ever participated in was in 1998 and he lost. A Google search for "Adriano Santos" martial brings up 138 results and a search for "Adriano Santos" fight nets 352 results. I was unable to find any Google news results on him but this is probably because he is not recent. - Icewedge (talk) 01:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tulio Palhares. JJL (talk) 01:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails Wikipedia:BIO, I mean he is just a fighter, there are thousands just like him. If that articles stays I will become a fighter just so I can have my own Wiki article.⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 05:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Flowerparty^☀ 22:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Peters (politician)

notability not established, no significant secondary coverage listed, subject may be notable in the future, but wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Napsterbater (talk) 01:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Local politicians have to demonstrate significance above and beyond average locals, and being the first president of whateveritis doesn't suffice. Nyttend (talk) 01:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Significant news coverage, both in local and national newsmedia. GoogleNews returns 1440 hits[52] for "Scott Peters" "San Diego". Probably not all are about him, but at least a few hundred are. E.g. LA Times [53], [54], [55][56], SF Chronicle [57], NYT [58], FOX News[59], Washongton Post [60], Christian Science Monitor [61], Philadelphia Inquirer[62], etc, and a ton of coverage in San Diego Union Tribune. Passes WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 05:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, certainly being president of the city council asserts notability. *Soman (talk) 10:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It does not, as it is a local council. Even a city mayor requires multiple secondary sourcings from national newspapers to assert, much less satisfy notability. That said, it seems like Nsk92's sources are enough. I will list them then withdraw the nom. Napsterbater (talk) 19:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I would generally consider city councillors in the 8th-largest U.S. city to be notable enough, and he holds the council presidency. --Dhartung | Talk 17:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep although most of the mentions are insignificant, some of them are substantial. DGG (talk) 22:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Flowerparty^☀ 22:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nedley Mandingo

This is an article about a fictional character on the Bubba the Love Sponge show. As it is a fictional character, I do not feel that it meets Wikipedia notability standards for inclusion. I understand that there are other fictional characters that do have articles on Wikipedia, but this one is a stretch. Suggest deletion or - at the very best - a selective merge into the BTLS article. InDeBiz1 Review me! / Talk to me! 00:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notableCinnamon colbert (talk) 01:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Google turns up nothing useful. (It amuses me that roughly half the article is devoted to proving that this is a fictional character.) AnturiaethwrTalk 02:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

not that I am supporting the article, but that's exactly what is mean by real-world content. DGG (talk) 22:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I meant as opposed to a real person. There's a bunch of stuff in there that boils down to "you never hear this character and this actor at the same time; they're probably the same guy." AnturiaethwrTalk 01:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable.--Rtphokie (talk) 17:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kitchen Bar

A local pub, lacking substantial notability. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking substantial walls, floors, ceiling etc. It has been demolished according to the link. So no pub no article required.--Sting Buzz Me... 01:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment— This doesn't necessary mean it's nn (not that it isn't). Just because the building no longer exsists doesn't mean it's automatically no longer notable. If this were so, we would have deleted World Trade Center awhile ago, wouldn't we? --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 02:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok you do have a point there. I'll leave my vote as delete though as I feel this pub is just not notable. The original pub might have had some historical significance? But since it no longer exists the article is basically just advertising the new kitchen?--Sting Buzz Me... 02:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the connection to the World Trade Center is a chalk-and-cheese comparison. There is a huge difference between a global landmark that was destroyed in a terrorist attack, resulting the deaths of thousands, and an obscure pub that went out of business. Ecoleetage (talk) 11:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But the point still stands that no longer existing is not a valid reason in itself for claiming that a subject isn't notable. Furthermore, the pub isn't out of business, it just had to move. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The BBC and The Post stories are a lot more than a "passing mentions." A notable business/building no longer existing is not criteria for deletion in any Wikipedia policy or guideline.--Oakshade (talk) 09:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (I'm the article creator) - the original bar may not exist any more but it had historical significance, as evidenced by the BBC article. Its demolition was also the subject of considerable controversy. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've added some more references to the article which hopefully establish notability. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete demolish. No assertion of notability. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 12:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A quote from Wikipedia:Notability:"A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability". Surely a BBC feature and a whole article in The Observer satify those requirements? Cordless Larry (talk) 12:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If the article didn't even assert notability it would be under speedy deletion instead of AFD. Notability is asserted if not proven making your vote....well misguided at the very least. Exxolon (talk) 15:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- After all, I found the BBC article convincing, so I choose to keep. Further, what can you say about Mizu onna sango15's argument? Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 06:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Once notable, always notable. Notability has been established by substantial coverage in reliable sources. --Eastmain (talk) 18:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 18:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 18:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 18:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notability established by sources. Ideally would be expanded to indicate the history before the demolition. --Dhartung | Talk 20:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notability seems to be established. However this articles does fail to explain why this pub is so notable, and having fixed this in the article may hinder it being nominated for deletion. Arsenikk (talk) 22:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snowball keep, but let's be careful about how long the list gets Grutness...wha? 01:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Names of God

Allah, Yahweh, Brahman, Great Spirit are not the same. By the way, Brahman is not even a being, I only know of Hindus who worship Vishnu, Shiva, and lesser gods like Ganesha and so forth.
If the article was describing a particular syncretic movement or organization, then it would be fine. However, as it stands the problem isn't just about a particular viewpoint. It borders on falsehood as well.--Names of gods (talk) 17:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. The article defines itself clearly: "some names refer almost exclusively to the supreme being of a single religion". The topic meets the notability criteria. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_May_16#Category:Names_of_God for a discussion pertaining to this.--Names of gods (talk) 18:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. (possibly rename) This article is about the names used to reference a monotheistic supreme being across cultures. The intro makes that clear. I believe the subject is notable and within wikipedia guidelines. Maybe the article should be renamed to something like Names of monotheistic deities (though it is not the deities, but the religious that are monotheistic), but a slightly confusing title is not reason to delete. Any ideas on changing the title of the article? I think I agree to some extent with the nominator that these deities are not necessarily God, and the implication is that which promotes the POV of pantheism or soft polytheism or something along the lines of "All Gods are one". Maybe Names of God in monotheistic cultures? That's probably too long/complex.-Andrew c ^[talk] 21:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't oppose Names of singular Gods, Names of monotheistic Gods, etc. Of course, several sections like those on Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. would have to be scrapped. Additionally, notice that I proposed Gods in my titles. I stated that this article equates Yahweh=Allah=Bahai's supreme God=Sikh's Supreme God. It clearly has a New Age agenda. User:Names of gods21:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I think few people are willing to take a firm stand for or against this article. This article lacks sources from traditional theological books that equate Allah with Yahweh, let alone other Gods of monotheistic religions. Apparently, a novel dogma is established as incontrovertible fact through repetition. User:Names of gods 22:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC) =Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.108.31.176 (talk)

Comment- The article doesn't seem to realize that Hinduism is polytheist (as different to the monotheistic Abrahamic religions). If kept then renaming to "Names of gods" (note lower case gods) might be in order?--Sting Buzz Me... 01:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a bad remedy. Names of principal gods or Names of chief gods would be more in order since the current version of the article doesn't discuss minor gods of polytheistic religions. Plus, Buddhism and Raelism are nontheistic.--User:Names of gods71.108.31.176 (talk) 01:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saying Hinduism is polytheistic is not really accurate (see Hinduism#Concept of God). Also, your title would change the scope of the article to cover thousands of deities. The focus of this article is monothesism/singular God, not the name of every deity.-Andrew c ^[talk] 02:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hinduism is polytheistic. I have heard some kooks say Brahma is the equivalent of the Allah and Yahweh for Hinduism. However, I have asked Hindu Brahmins who told me that the only major gods worship by Hindus are Vishnu and Shiva plus their avatars. No one worships Brahma. They recognize Brahma as a god, but don't worship Brahma.--71.108.31.176 (talk) 02:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP this article. You cant find the names compiled like this on any other page here... I need this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.105.145 (talk) 01:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nominator's reasoning given is based on a fundamental misinterpretation of the article itself. At no point does the article propose that Allah, Brahman, and the others listed here are the same entity; the article is referring to names applied to any singular God by various religions and traditions. At most, rename to names and titles of God to address the claims that some of these names are actually titles or epithets. -Sean Curtin (talk) 02:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep— Perhaps cleanup is required here for the sake of clarity and to avoid confusion, but not deletion. Renaming may be called for as well, per Grrmp and Andrew c, but otherwise, just keep as is; I don't see anything wrong with it. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 02:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep useful, appropriate list. Nomination doesn't cite valid reasons for deletion--they are editing disagreements. JJL (talk) 02:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To which of my 2 reasons do you object. Please clarify if you would like to do more than vote.--71.108.31.176 (talk) 02:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment both of your points seem to be about factual issues that should be handled by editing. For deletion, what's the reason: Is it not notable? An inappropriate list? JJL (talk) 02:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article name causes confusion of fundamental theological concepts.

I am certainly not hell-bent on deletion. I and others suggested several other names particularly with the plural Gods if the content will focus on monotheism or gods if it stay in its current form with some minor edits.

The article says. "Conceptions of God can vary widely," which is like saying, "Conceptions of Human can vary widely." It would be accurate to say "Conceptions of the principal Gods of most religions can vary widely," or "Conceptions of divinity can vary widely." User:Name of gods--71.108.31.176 (talk) 02:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Aleta ^Sing 03:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, looks like a well-written article, with encyclopedic content. JIP | Talk 03:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that this article is "well-written" or sacrosanct even if it endeavored to be an article of the Names chief gods of all religions due to its deficiencies. For example, Zeus or Ishtar of Assyrian polytheism aren't included while Jupiter is.--71.108.31.176 (talk) 04:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, a notable topic that contains a large amount of useful and encyclopedic information. If some information in it is wrong, fix it. If some is missing, add it. No particular reason to delete. ~ mazca ^talk 12:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and close the discussion as the snow keeps rolling

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted as a hoax. _GB^T/C 07:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

King Boca

I smell a hoax - is my WP olfactory working correctly? Ecoleetage (talk) 00:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should get rid of this hoax. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 02:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete absolute stupidity (db-vandalism). JuJube (talk) 02:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Tagged as such. Cheers, --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 02:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 or No Consensus to delete or merge that's for sure. (Non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 20:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kitsap regional library

Non-notable local library; perhaps a merger into the WP article on Kitsap County is possible? Ecoleetage (talk) 00:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Kitsap County, Washington as article nn by itself.--Sting Buzz Me... 01:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 118,000 Google results for "Kitsap regional library" with quotes. 112 Google news hits, with quotes. - Icewedge (talk) 02:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I came up with about nine [63] but they all seemed to be pretty much local news reports and as such not exactly independant? But if you think one of those hits might be WP:RS then add it in as a reference.--Sting Buzz Me... 02:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral/Weak on the one hand there is some RS coverage, but most is name drop mentions of people working there and things they are notable for. On the other hand, it's a library system and I think one article on the system rather than an article on each of the non-notable local libraries is probably a better option. I think it needs better sourcing to be a keep, but I'm not seeing it as a delete/merge either because there's probably a good argument to keep. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 05:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC) change to keep, see below _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 03:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm not fussed if it is kept. Currently a no consensus which = default keep anyhow. I agree that article needs better sourcing.--Sting Buzz Me... 08:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article makes no claim of notability at all. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 23:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In the interest of full disclosure, I've requested the input from a librarian here on Wikipedia to see that perspective. I don't see this as canvassing since as I said above, I'm fairly neutral on this _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 01:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (I think that's me Cari was referring to.) If we accept school district articles,we should accept regional libraries like this. They are exactly analogous. Obviously more information can and must be added. What I would definitely oppose is articles on the individual town libraries, unless there is something strikingly notable to be said--I don't think they belong in Wikipedia just as I dont think elementary or junior high school articles usually belong. (The most likely notability for any of these would be the historic nature of the institution) Best way of keeping them out is to allow articles like this one--same argument as I use for school districts.DGG (talk) 01:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Week Keep: Libraries are like grocery stores, office buildings, and restaurants; they're buildings that serve a specific purpose. While its purpose may be notable, every building that serves that purpose generaly is not. With nine libraries throughout the county, fairly good chance of this becoming sourced.--Hu12 (talk) 01:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing rules out having an article on a library system, or even an individual library, if sources are available from which meaningful content can be added. I'd delete the article for now, awaiting the possible arrival of sources in the future. There is so little information in the present article, it's almost not worth reading it. You'd be better off going to the library system's own web site. For an example of a decently written library article (that I just happen to have helped with slightly :-) see Whitby Public Library. It has some sources and it's got quirky historical information. EdJohnston (talk) 02:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment and change to keep I've added some sourcing and while it's not iron clad, I think it's enough to get it through. It's similar to school district sourcing in that it establishes some information about its operations. I found more from the local paper and will try to expand more on it _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 03:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Useful information --Kyknos (talk) 04:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Flowerparty^☀ 22:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Killing Christian

Non-notable three-year-old independent film that is not in commercial theatrical or DVD release. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability. JJL (talk) 02:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not everything can be sold via DVD, alot of these movies are just travelling around to filmfestivals 80.216.215.205 (talk) 12:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC) — 80.216.215.205 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. It doesn't appear this film passes WP:MOVIE. A Google search did not turn up any reliable reviews, box office data, cultural impact, etc. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 03:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability is offered, the article is an orphan, no significant person seems to have been involved with the film, and I can find no reliable 3rd-party references to satisfy WP's guidelines for movie notability. --AnnaFrance (talk) 17:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, per 4 speedy keep and 2 keep votes vs. 0 delete votes, also see Wikipedia:Snowball clause. JIP | Talk 03:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Klara Hitler

How is she notable on her own? Merge into Adolf Hitler article DimaG (talk) 00:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Bio about the mother of one of the 20th century's most recognizeable political figures is encyclopedic. Klara Hitler has been widely noted in thousands of publications, sources on her abound. Moreover this AfD is malformed and should be closed as such: Nom advocates a merge, not deletion. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per Gwen Gale. Article is definitely stand alone. Merging back into Adolf Hitler article not helpful as that article is already long enough to scroll through.--Sting Buzz Me... 00:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per Gwen Gale and Sting. Apart from anything else, there is plenty of coverage of her specifically, e.g. see the GoogleBooks search[64]. Passes WP:BIO by way over a mile. Nsk92 (talk) 00:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This AfD may be rather pointy too.[65] Gwen Gale (talk) 01:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well... I put this on VDF to see what happens. I am pretty surprised that this article might be deleted in the Russian Wikipedia here's the discussion [66] --DimaG (talk) 01:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, I don't think a nom for AfD "to see what happens" is very helpful. This aside, having looked at the Russian Wikipedia version of the article, it's sketchy, has oddly sentimental language and some errors of fact, along with only one cited source (Fromm). I see keep votes in the discussion there, which mostly has to do with whether or not mothers of famous figures are in themselves notable (tellingly, one poster says the mother of Lenin would be, but few others). I don't think the comparison adds much here. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I looked up the discussion in the Russian AfD as well. I don't find the delete arguments presented there persuasive. This is not a BLP1E case (where some-one gets 15 minutes of fame and is then largely forgotten). Our WP:BIO has very good and specific language in this regard: "That person A has a relationship with well-known person B is not a reason for a standalone article on A (unless significant coverage can be found on A)". In this case there is plenty of significant coverage of "A", that is of Klara Hitler. The key requirement of WP:BIO is: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject". There is no doubt that this requirement is satisfied here. Also, as one of the keep voters in the Russian AfD said, the subject clearly passes the 100 years test. Nsk92 (talk) 01:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clearly notable. JJL (talk) 02:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per all of the above. Aleta ^Sing 03:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy/Snow Keep There has been plenty of notability established to Hitler's mother in many sources. She has been studied throughout history for obvious reasons (nature vs. nurture debates, what does it take to create a Hitler, etc.), and as such, is far more notable than a typical historical figure's mother. Eauhomme (talk) 03:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 01:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Groundwork Monitor Community Edition

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (web). Google hits show only its own official website except some trivial information exist in other website. Furthermore, most information were copied from its subpage NAHID 07:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this as spam. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 10:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree—it reads like an advertisement. It's also an orphan. --AnnaFrance (talk) 14:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete spam, created by a likely SPA Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 17:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Appears to be spam/advert. TN‑X-Man 00:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above. Trees Rock^MyGoal 01:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of cites and as likely spam.-- danntm ^T _C 20:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak move to Groundwork Monitor:~~ Google search for "groundwork monitor" with the quotes but without "community edition" yields many sources, such as this and this. Current version incorporates verbiage from copyrighted website and so should be deleted; if somebody wishes to write a new article from scratch, then it should probably be titled "Groundwork Monitor." 69.140.152.55 (talk) 10:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] Gillz.is

[1]