Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 September 19

< September 18	September 20 >

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. MBisanz ^talk 03:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Northern exposure rescue

Non-notable organization. This is the second incarnation of this article, the first previously deleted had proper capitalization. No proper explanation as to why the speedy deletion tag was removed. 14 Gogle hits, nothing in Google news. Corvus cornix_talk 23:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it because I wanted to take a closer look at the article. After I did, I felt there was a weak assertion of notability. I was in the process of composing a message on your talk page informing you of this and recommending AFD while you were doing the AFD.--Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately google news is not a true reflection of the the world news and should not be used as gauge of popularity. Google itself and other search engines do produce more results. In any case 14 is more than enough! The article has been edited to now include proper capitalization. You are correct that this is the second version of this article after the comments of others were taken onboard. Clowe01 (talk) 00:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, 14 Google hits is not more than enough. Please read WP:RS. Corvus cornix_talk 01:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Note: I quickly converted many of the raw external links to {{cite web}}s and wikilinks to make it easier to check out. Just noting that you're free to review an older revision if you believe I might have messed up a relevant citation. None of the links in the article show non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. From what I can tell, none of the links outside of the organization's own page even mention Northern Exposure Rescue. They're just coverage or trivial listings for the named events. The only link that goes to a reliable source, the Telegraph article, contains no mention of the article's subject. Notability is not inherited by peripheral participation in notable events. TheMolecularMan (talk) 01:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - admirable but not notable org. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:24, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the referencing provided don't constitute reliable sources, and I've not found anythign else that really supports notability -- Whpq (talk) 16:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cant see any notabillity at all. abf /talk to me/ 19:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Look at Your Hands

The result was Redirect to Faith (George Michael album). L'Aquatique[talk] 02:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a song on a notable album, granted, but it was never released as a single and I don't think I've heard it in my entire life. As the article goes, it's a stub lacking any references. Red157(talk • contribs) 23:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Red157(talk • contribs) 23:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to parent album, as per WP:MUSIC#Songs - just not notable enough to warrant an independent article. Booglamay (talk) - 00:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Faith (George Michael album) as a plausible search term. Hasn't charted, no awards, no notable covers, fails notability as per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 23:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article becuase its not notable and redirect it to the album its on according to WP:MUSIC abf /talk to me/ 19:18, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Faith (George Michael album). --Dawn Bard (talk) 14:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 00:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IPod shuffle Database Builder

I don't see any claim to notability in the article. There are no external sources for this article other than the sourceforge page to download it. A quick Google search doesn't reveal any news about it. Miami33139 (talk) 23:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: unsourced article about non-notable program. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 02:04, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: looks like an attempt to promote a not-yet-notable application. maxsch (talk) 01:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just a comment for now: A search shows that the author had an article in PC Magazine and the program was independently covered in the book "Apple Hacks." It is included in some Linux distributions. I think that it could easily meet WP:N. I suspect that there are probably other sources which would satisfy WP:RS (it had received a lot more non-RS coverage (gizmodo/lifehacker/etc.) than other software & this often trickles into print media). Since I don't have better examples at the moment, I won't argue that we should keep it. But it is worth pointing out that the problem with the article isn't really that the subject lacks notability. --Karnesky (talk) 22:30, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as attack page. Pegasus «C¦T» 00:37, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chad south

No sources to establish notability and unable to locate anything on Google. Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 23:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article was tagged for speedy deletion as an attack page. I removed that speedy template as I see no evidence that this is an attack page. If, on the other hand, someone thinks it meets CSD A7, feel free to tag it as such, I just felt it was too borderline and merited discussion. --Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 23:28, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I still stand by the speedy delete as an attack page. I won't quote the article, but this link (Urban Dictionary, NSFW) may give some insight. The article uses derogative terms for homosexuality to insult someone. It may appear that this person (and their father) run a quaint little confectionery outlet, but it really isn't the case. Perhaps the term is only really used in British English? Booglamay (talk) - 23:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The A7 claim is borderline, hoaxes aren't speedyable per the CSD rules, not proveable as an attack page... I think it could be wiped as vandalism myself, but better to just let the blizzard wipe it out to bar re-creation rather than use a challengeable CSD criteria. Townlake (talk) 23:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's an attack page. I found this about a person named Chad South who doesn't seem to be notable yet. --Eastmain (talk) 00:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 00:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Words of Peace

Non-notable television programme. Source for notability are self-published. Any verifiable information should be merged to Prem Rawat or articles on his organization. Kelly ^hi! 22:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Dish Network is not a TV channel. I don't know if any of the rest of the information on that page is correct, but I know that isn't. Corvus cornix_talk 23:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's an interactive television service. If it's anything like Virgin Media over it can play programs 'On Demand'. Aka over a service instead of a channel. Red157(talk • contribs) 00:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not only non-notable, but also shameless self-promotion. Drmies (talk) 03:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:30, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The main claim to notability would appear to be the award form the Brazilian Association of Community Television Channels. However neither the organization nor the prize appear to be notable. Many religious figures put out video lectures/sermons/lessons. There are no 3rd-party sources -all we have is a press release, a schedule listing, and some links to webistes connected to the speaker. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neither notable nor no self-promotion. abf /talk to me/ 19:21, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 23:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gavin Osborn

An English singer/songwriter who does not meet the criteria for an article in the encyclopedia per WP:MUSIC. Previously deleted after being prodded. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete insufficient mention in reliable sources, he has received a few mentions for his tour with Daniel Kitson (eg. 1,2,3) but they are all trivial and contain essential no biographical information. His record label is Gravity DIP Records which appears to be a not insignificant indie label and thus might meet WP:MUSIC criterion #6, but I find the lack of RS and, failure to meet the WP:GNG by any measure, to overwhelm that. Also, this means very little as it is pretty subjective, but judging by his myspace comments[1] he does not have a very large fan base. - Icewedge (talk) 00:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as recreation of deleted material. Salt it this time. Undead Warrior (talk) 02:37, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first deletion was via the proposed deletion process which is considered non-binding and can be overturned by any user, so CSD G4 does not apply. - Icewedge (talk) 03:07, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Undead Warrior (talk) 02:38, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:30, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable sub-stup, per Icewedge's comment. abf /talk to me/ 19:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ff m 23:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography of Prem Rawat and related organizations

Article should be ~~merged~~deleted and any notable content placed in Prem Rawat. Kelly ^hi! 22:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is not a place to propose mergers. Corvus cornix_talk 23:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, fixed my original statement. Kelly ^hi! 23:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of material then merger of it into another article is a GFDL violation. Corvus cornix_talk 23:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. People should familiarize themselves with the edit wars that have taken place on Prem Rawat and related topics. -- Eastmain (talk) 00:07, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Nah, the idea is to apply Wikipedia:Summary style, not only on Prem Rawat#References (which imho should be shortened due to over-all length, not expanded), but also on Divine Light Mission#References and Elan Vital (organization)#Bibliography – see: Talk:Bibliography of Prem Rawat and related organizations#Questions: proposed MO.
As for the noteworthyness/viability of individual entries in the bibliography article: these points can be raised at Talk:Bibliography of Prem Rawat and related organizations, for instance at Talk:Bibliography of Prem Rawat and related organizations#Currently not retained in article namespace: discussing this at AfD in an all-or-nothing style is a bit surreal. --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment AfD proposal is not appropriate.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 08:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nominator has given no wiki policies this article is in violation of. Looks fine to me (in terms of keep/delete). Hohohahaha (talk) 00:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep At the moment, I don't see a conclusive argument in favour of deletion. Jayen 466 12:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have Category:Bibliographies by subject full of bibliographies, including the very similar Bibliography of books about Sathya Sai Baba and Neuro-linguistic programming bibliography. I don't see why this article should be deleted. It serves an encyclopedic purpose. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete due to lack of any outside sources. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 00:09, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Madison Agency

Self promotional article created by User:Gabriel Moginot who has also been hard at work writing his own article at Gabriel Moginot, which has been deleted two or three times already. That user has been trying to use Wikipedia to launch his career as a budding photographer by inserting numerous images (probably copyrighted) into any article even remotely related to the title of the picture. Any google hits on this subject trace back to a myspace page and there is little or no other information about it. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 22:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If this agency was responsible for launching the careers of numerous famous supermodels, as the article claims, surely there would be some reliable secondary sources establishing notability. Since there are none to be found and it comes from a serial vanity spammer, I'm skeptical. TheMolecularMan (talk) 22:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, spam. Corvus cornix_talk 23:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - tagged for same. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:07, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 23:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Magnum Heat

Declined a speedy on this because I couldn't find a good criteria to delete it under (it's not online from the indications therein, it's not a person, it's not a group, it's not vandalism, and it doesn't read like advertising), and we don't have a {{db|IAR}} tag hanging around anywhere. This is a homemade film, no sources, no notability, no nothing. Delete, and if someone comes up with a category it fits in, make that a speedy. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion of notability. TheMolecularMan (talk) 22:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, unsourced, home movie. (And having a CSD category for "unremarkable videos" would be handy indeed.) ~~SIS~~ 22:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — No evidence of notability and no sources. macy 23:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, unsourced. Agree with User:Strikeout_Sister. Paste (talk) 18:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:31, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A lack of sources or assertions of notability are not reasons to delete an article. However, I cannot myself find WP:RS to prove any notabiity. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A non-notable home movie. Schuym1 (talk) 13:21, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's snowing in here. Bearian (talk) 18:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete Its some kind of maths ;) not notable+no sources=no article ;) abf /talk to me/ 19:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ff m 00:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Acronyms in the Philippines

Claims like "Acronyms are popular in the Philippines" are original research. List itself is just a collection of acronyms and what they stand for, not much in the way of notability and no encyclopedic value. maxsch (talk) 22:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Mixed feelings about this one. To some extent, it is encyclopedic and contains information that should be placed somewhere, like "Vote for D CHAMPP", a campaign slogan that has no equivalent in American politics, and a sourced article about how acronyms are used in the Phillipine media might be worthwhile. I'm surprised, though, at how much original research fluff. My favorite unsourced statement, more so than "Acronyms are popular" is this one: "Pedantic discussions on the differences between abbreviations, acronyms, and initialisms is non-existent since for most Filipinos, all are considered acronyms whether or not the acronym is spelled out or spoken like a word." Did someone do a survey or something? Mandsford (talk) 23:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —bluemask ^(talk) 05:48, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retain This is a very good encyclopedic article. Proof: a) it is well-sourced, meaning therefore, putting tons of links like BBC, AFP, etc. are not essential, due to "res ipsa loquitur" principle, b) not only students, teachers, but even scholars, professors, and Philippine jurists can benefit from this well-written article. I myself, would use this, in preparation of court pleadings, and c) the blue wikified links are in themselves source of tons of links. This is not an original research.--Florentino floro (talk) 08:04, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than trying to argue that sources "are not essential", the editors should simply find soume sources to cure the "original research" objections are easily cured by the addition of sources. This one doesn't have any sources. It can't be described as "sourced", let alone "well sourced". I agree that the subject is encyclopedic, which is all the more reason that the article should be brought up to Wikipedia's standards. For the time being, the non-acronym "O.R." applies. Mandsford (talk) 19:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added a source - it wasn't difficult. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good start. I urge people to follow Warden's example and put sources, and if there are some items that can't be sourced (like those "most Filipinos agree" sentences) those can be removed through cleanup. Mandsford (talk) 22:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that sources alone can save this artlice. The fact that acronyms are used in the Philippines does not make "Acronyms in the Philippines" an encyclopedic article. The claims about acronyms--their popularity in the Philippines, the inclusiveness of the definition--will be OR no matter what. Even a "List of Acronyms in the Philippines" would violate WP:NOTDIR and WP:SYN. It is an accumulation of unrelated acronyms based only on the fact that they are used in the Philippines. WTF. maxsch (talk) 00:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or listify Currently almost all the text is unsourced, based on synthesis and is not presented from a neutral point of view. Based on the one source provided it seems like the topic could have an article but there is nothing to base it on at present (and I have found no additional sources) ideally a list of this sort should complement an article but as it is the unsourced, POV text with statements such as "Pedantic discussions on the differences between abbreviations, acronyms, and initialisms is non-existent since for most Filipinos" should really be removed anyway. Guest9999 (talk) 00:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Maybe greatly trim down the actual list of acronyms in the second part of the article and just source (or remove if sources can't be found) the contentious statements in the prose part. --seav (talk) 04:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What would determine whether a particular acronym belongs? There doesn't seem to be any reasonable criteria to decide what a "acronym in the Philippines" is. Is it an acronym that is used in the Philippines? An acronym used only in the Philippines? Does it have to be an acronym for something notable? It's just too vague. maxsch (talk) 05:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retitle to Use of acronyms in the Philippines. However, I think EVERY acronym should be properly cited. I am aware of "VOTE 4 D CHAMPP" though. Starczamora (talk) 14:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 09:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Irfan Khan (singer)

I know there's endemic bias when it comes to the coverage of non-Western performers, but there's no real claim of notability here, and nothing to verify his notablity. A search for '"Irfan Khan" Brekhna' comes up with 32 Google hits, nothing of them a reliable source. Nothing in Google news. Corvus cornix_talk 22:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced article about a living person containing information which as of yet cannot be verified. A total rewrite based on reliable sources would be needed if they do exist to be found. Guest9999 (talk) 00:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:31, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced and unreferenced --Jack1956 (talk) 21:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please Do not Delete: Irfan is a very well know singer in the Pashtun Community both in Pakistan and Afghanistan. I am trying to find some articles about him. I know he interviewed with Voice of America and Pashtu BBC service some months ago. If you would like to know his notability. Just goto Youtube and search for his Name. --69.94.212.91 (talk) 06:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an example : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7oat5t4NuI

Just one of his songs, viewed 25,000 times. --69.94.212.91 (talk) 06:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the same song at concert, Televised on Pak-Afghan TV.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNsQ3C7puk0 Again viewed 15,000 times. Now he is not on the cover of Time Magazine. But in that specifc region of the world, he is very well known. --69.94.212.91 (talk) 06:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an Interview/Article on Irfan written by a French Journalist

http://www.desrevespleinlemonde.com/reves_adultes_pakistan.htm --Kqadir 14:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kqadir (talk • contribs)

Search for his song "Pekhawar Kho Pekhawar De" on google returns 2,780 results. It's literally post on hundreds of sites. --Kqadir 00:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Here is a youtube video of Irfan performing "Pekhawar Kho Pekhawar De" to stadium filled crowd. The Video itself has been viewed around 129,000 times. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTteVGuUWTw

--69.94.212.91 (talk) 02:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 23:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inadequacy

This article confuses me. This is tagged as "disambiguation" but it "disambiguates" different meanings of the word inadequacy, none of which are encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a dictionary per WP:DICDEF. Tavix (talk) 21:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best a dictionary definition. The prominence of "sexual impotence" as a synonym also makes me say WP:NPOV, and maybe even WP:OR. maxsch (talk) 22:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Inadequate topic for more than a dicdef, inadequate utility as a diambig. ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:19, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. —Tavix (talk) 14:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- not a disambiguation page, not an article. Could become a soft redirect to Wiktionary if not deleted outright. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. I can also not really see what this should be... abf /talk to me/ 19:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Pointing stick. BJ^Talk 21:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nipple mouse

Idiotic neologism. Contested prod so wasting everyone's time doing it the hard way. – iride scent 21:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to pointing stick. While the pointing stick article has a ridiculous reference for the term nipple mouse, Google indicates that it is a common enough term that a redirect could be useful. To me, nipple mouse makes more sense than pointing stick :D THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 22:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect somewhere - for the reasons I noted in my Prod nom- failing WP:N, neologism etc. Thanks for taking this here, Iridescent. – Toon ^(talk) 22:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What the hell? Delete as a neologism. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 23:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — It's too short, no information about it. macy 23:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Pointing stick. Reasonable search term, but no content to merge or need for a separate article. - Eldereft (cont.) 00:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not notable enough for its own article. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 02:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete dumb. JuJube (talk) 03:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pointing stick. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to "Pointing stick". Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:24, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree that the article is silly neologism. SchfiftyThree 23:12, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete neologism of banal stupidity. It also is in poor taste. --SJK (talk) 07:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. I've seen the term used in various places, so it should at least redirect to the more politically correct term. --Itub (talk) 09:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete, maybe redirect it. It contains no real information at all and does not seem to be notable for an own lemma. abf /talk to me/ 19:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails the everything test. RFerreira (talk) 20:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Orbit Communications Company. Cirt (talk) 23:45, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

America Plus

non-notable cable television channel that doesn't appear to have any non-trivial coverage in secondary sources. A handful of mentions on Google relate to it being offered with various satellite TV packages, but it seems that nobody has commented on the channel itself. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 21:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: only reference was trivial. Insufficient references to establish notability (a Google search shows only trivial mentions). Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 02:17, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Orbit Network, the service's home. I do find 533 G-hits under the term "america plus" +orbit, but some of them are in Arabic, and many of them just say the channel exists on the system. Nate • (chatter) 07:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect until more references can be found.--MrFish^{Go Fish} 23:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 23:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Horsey

Unsourced article about an artist whose notability I can not establish. He certainly exists - he has a website, and has interviewed musicians for a few magazines - but as an artist, who apparently has collaborated with Peter Blake, I can find no mention of him. THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 21:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because it does not have any notability independent of Bad Horsey (whose notability is under question):

THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 19:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google turns up only first-party stuff. While we're at it, why not bundle Estudio Caballito Malo, Bad Horsey's group? Despite being "notorious for their locations", they appear to suffer from the same lack of notability. TheMolecularMan (talk) 22:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Double Delete Estudio Caballito Malo is surely a hoax, or joke? How the hell has that survived since 2005? I have serious doubts about Bad Horsey too, but since neither are within a mile of being notable I can't be bothered to dig around. Johnbod (talk) 19:28, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note. I have bundled Estudio Caballito Malo given the support for doing so by TheMolecularMan and Johnbod – and its quicker than PRODing it if Bad Horsey is deleted. THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 19:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 23:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carola Darwin

Notability of the subject not established. See comments by previous editor on the article's Talk Page. Jack1956 (talk) 21:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't see how she is yet notable; her career is not yet established. DGG (talk) 00:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. For the record, I'll paste my Talk Page comments below:

In my opinion it is too soon for an article on Carola Darwin. She does not appear to pass the criteria for the notability of creative professionals or musicians, composers, lyricists. Note that being the great-great-granddaughter of Charles Darwin, and the sister of Emma Darwin does not establish notability either. Notability is not inherited. See Google search results for "Carola Darwin" on the web and in news archives (all dates).

The opera mentioned (Children of Fire) is still being developed and is not due to premiere until 2009 at the earliest. The notability of the project and Carola Darwin's involvement in it is not established at the point. See these Google search results for web and news archives (all dates)

The opera performances listed do not state the company. Having checked several of them, they appear to be student productions, community organizations, and semi-professional companies. No major roles with notable professional opera companies, no solo recitals in major concert halls, and no appearances as a soloist with a major orchestra which have been reviewed in reliable independent sources.

The Vienna Show mentioned is part of the subject's as yet uncompleted PhD and has received no notable coverage on the web or in the news (all dates) This mention [2] is for a project at the Young Vic for:

"directors at an early stage of their career. The only criteria for joining is that they consider themselves professional directors, are not in full time education and are resident in the UK. It is important that when using this list detailed references are taken up as presence on this list is not in itself a recommendation." [3]

I've re-checked the links above and there is no improvement in notability, of either Darwin or her proposed project. Nor has the article been improved or references supporting notability added. My arguments remain the same.Voceditenore (talk) 11:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DGG et al. Notability is not inherited from famous forebears and siblings. Bearian (talk) 18:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 23:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Urban Rangers

Set in the fictional world of Ed, Edd, and Eddy and probably non-notable. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 21:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete db-nocontext. The article makes no specification that it refers to Ed, Edd, and Eddy and quite frankly there's no reason to fix that. Just throw it in the garbage heap. JuJube (talk) 03:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I couldn't find any reliable sources. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was about to say Speedy delete db-nocontext at first, but even knowing how this article fits into the in-universe structure, it's just a mess of (most likely) nonnotable badges. – sgeureka ^t•c 18:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was db-nonsense. Schuym1 (talk) 11:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Drawn Together: Shown in the Cinema, on This Summer

I can't find any reliable sources for this movie. Schuym1 (talk) 20:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't even find any unreliable sources for this movie. I also suspect that even if the movie is real, the ratings given to it are fake, because if the movie were complete enough to have received a rating, it would be set for release much earlier than mid-2010. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:12, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoaxalicious. JuJube (talk) 03:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: unverified speculation. Cliff smith ^talk 05:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Hoax film that would not be rated this soon, and based on the series' noterity, almost would certainly never see a theater screening based on its content (unrated DVD is much more likely). Article editor also has no idea that movies always come out on either a Wednesday or a Friday except in special circumstances, and going by this article, it comes out in the US on a Sunday, a Tuesday in England, and Australlia on a Wednesday. Oh, and Warner Bros. gave up their interest in Comedy Central six years ago, so this would likely be a Paramount Pictures release. Nate • (chatter)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ff m 00:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Artifakt (band)

non notable band, unsigned, fails BAND N and RS CdC—Chuleta de Chancho (talk) 20:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This band fails to meet any WP:notability requirements.Nrswanson (talk) 14:09, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This band has met one or more of the notabilities, they have performed on a well known national radio station, AND has been in many newspapers, such as the Southern Illinoisan. They deserve to have they're own wikipedia page. Xxpararockerxx (talk) 20:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional in tone, and, as already noted, does not meet WP:N. JNW (talk) 20:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article inquires a popular band that meets one or more of WP:notability requirements. I find nothing that sounds like a promotional in tone on the page. The band does meet WP:N. XXalyXx (talk) 20:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article fails to establish notability, and searches bring up nothing, per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 23:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Stated in criterion A7: An article does not have to prove that its subject is notable, just give a reasonable indication of why it might be notable. Just because this band has not went on any major tours yet, does NOT mean that their page has to be deleted. They are a notable and very popular independent band. They don't have to have a label to be a very popular band. They have a buzznet, a myspace, also has been in The Southern Illinoisan, their songs do play on the radio. They are notable. So please back off. XXalyXx (talk) 03:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A review of criteria under WP:NM suggests otherwise. Insisting upon one's point of view, and ordering others to 'back off', is neither terribly persuasive, nor respectful of fellow editors. After reviewing the article, a decision will eventually be made by an administrator. JNW (talk) 04:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Munich 1938 Project

Non-notable ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 20:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this unverified speculation. If the project gets a title and gets through pre-prod, the film will get an article once shooting begins. Cliff smith ^talk 05:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:CRYSTAL. Bring it back once it has begun production or has greater coverage. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ff m 00:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

V language

Claims to be a syntax-free computer language. I submit that it is impossible to have a syntax-free language, human or computer. Despite the refs, this language is not notable. - Sgroupace (talk) 20:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input. But ,as I being a person who has tried the language, I can tell that there can be such type of a language . In fact the mechanism is quite simple. It uses natural language processing to process the input text and converts into a specific syntax (through dictionary modes , grammatical operations etc) and later executes it. I hope you may also tried AIML for chatter bots. Karthika.kerala (talk) 20:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:For what it's worth, there is a syntax to V; it's just very loose. Take a look, for example, at this page: http://www.grogammer.com/v/printmsg.html (the website that allows you to "program" in V). It even says right there at the bottom of the page that there's a V syntax. Dgcopter (talk) 20:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, syntax or not, its existence can be verified through the references, and some are of a quality that states notability. But I have marked it with {{advertisement}} for not being particularly neutral point-of-view, especially in the lead (which is not blatant enough to interfere with this AfD). Arsenikk ^(talk) 20:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sgroupace is correct: there can be no language without syntax. Whether there is a syntax to V or not (of course there is), there should be correct syntax and correct claims in an article about V (or anything else). It doesn't look just look an ad, it looks like it's written by someone who has no authority to speak about syntax. This discussion shouldn't really be about V--it should be about the article about V. Karthika.kerala should do his homework. Drmies (talk) 03:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - one of my project volunteers told me that she had created an article in Wikipedia about language V. But the article doesn't carry any info related to AST used and the drawbacks of the current version. The article seems as if it is written to attract more developers for the project. Wikipedia is not the place for that ! Some one pl review the article and make it "neutral" .BTW, there is nothing wrong is saying that the V is "syntax free" because the input is in NL. It uses NLP to get the desired syntax. Pl refer to the project site for more tech details. Aasisvinayak (talk) 08:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aasisvinayak's response puzzles me a bit. Are you talking about two different articles? (And please don't suggest that NL (natural language, I assume) is syntax-free--it is not. Yes, I am a grammarian. By profession.) This article needs to be rewritten to the point where the original is pretty much gone, if it's to be a keeper. Drmies (talk) 02:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think from a programmer's POV it can be called as syntax free or at least very loose syntax as in the program "I would like to print" , "I wish to print" , "I wanna print" or "Print" - all have the same effect. BTW, I shall incorporate the missing point and will rewrite the article from Neutral POV. Karthika.kerala (talk) 10:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:36, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Pilkington Family

Unsourced and unverifiable article, possible hoax. DAJF (talk) 03:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only evidence I can find that the family members listed here founded any schools comes from edits to Wikipedia by the same person who created this article. In other words, there are no sources. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 20:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above. a unique name like Fantelroy Pilkington should be rather easy to pick out through the noise in a Google search, but it pinpoints down to only Wikipedia-related articles. I suspect this is bogus. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above. Looks like a likely hoax. Nsk92 (talk) 20:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly a hoax --Jack1956 (talk) 21:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Possibly a hoax. I couldn't find a reliable source. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Quite likely a hoax. The articles for the claimed schools all list other founders. There is a Pilkington family, but they are glass makers, not educators (q.v. Pilkington).--Auric (talk) 17:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:36, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no source and no seen notabillity, maybe hoax. abf /talk to me/ 19:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ff m 00:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jake High

Does not appear to meet WP:BIO, WP:ATHLETE or WP:NOTABILITY and article lacks non-trivial coverage in reliable, independent sources. See also a similar AFD recently in progress at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walter J. West. Kittybrewster ☎ 19:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Absoloutely meets WP:BIO, WP:ATHLETE, and WP:NOTABILITY. Head coach of New York University football in 1913, a prat the highest level of competition in the sport at the time (the NFL didn't form until 1920). Coach lost every game, outscored by opponents 241-0 or an average of 30.4 points per game. Extremely poor record assists notability.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - as noted above, head coach of a major university football program in the early years of the game. another reference can be found here to confirm the record. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as per Paulmcdonald. I believe that the article needs to be rewritten, as the "poorest performing coach in history" bit is POV unless there is reputable source which said so. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 20:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Historical in natureCdC—Chuleta de Chancho (talk) 20:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. His utter failure is historically significant. →Wordbuilder (talk) 20:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request As discussed on the AfD talk page, if this article (or any of the series of articles) is closed as a delete, please kindly first move the article to User:Paulmcdonald/Articlename, where "Articlename" is the name of the article (or articles) being removed. Also, please note the new page location at User:Paulmcdonald/deletedcoach so we can be sure to find the moved page.
Why? There have been, at present count, 58 articles of our project placed on the AfD list and there is just not enough time to adequately and appropriately respond and ultimately improve the articles themselves. This would give the project memebers time to work on improving the articles. This request should in no way imply that I believe that the article (or articles) in quesiton should be deleted at this time. I am making a simple cut-n-paste request due to the sheer volume of AfDs in such a short period of time.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Wordbuilder 09er (talk) 02:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:37, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of nontrivial coverage in reliable sources. Stifle (talk) 10:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep - notable enough, work on additional sources is needed, however. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep I believe it somehow fits our criteria to be notable. abf /talk to me/ 19:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a candidate for rescue, but I believe the subject meets WP:BIO even with the sparse sources currently cited. RFerreira (talk) 20:18, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per Jameson. Needs a lot of work. JKBrooks85 (talk) 23:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Procedural Close article already deleted of some sort (non-admin closure). RockManQ (talk) 04:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

International comparisons

No context (whose research project?); title much more general than the article; not clear what the domain of the article is; original research; no references. Largo Plazo (talk) 19:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One person's report is not notable. However, it would be a good source of information for other articles. Steve Dufour (talk) 19:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:OR issues. It could be useful for referencing other articles, however, if it's peer-reviewed. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this article in a non-encyclopedic way covers the yet-to-be-written single research project or paper. Or is it a web site? Hard to tell by the way it is written. Absolutely no attempt to provide sources to show notability, so it is a clear d. Arsenikk ^(talk) 20:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged for speedy deletion: not enough context to identify subject. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 02:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per wp:snow. No productive reason to leave this open that I can see. Keeper ǀ 76 14:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Kae Knecht

Non-notable, unsourced article, not seeing any claim to lasting notability on google and being "instrumental" without a source, is a weasel word. MBisanz ^talk 19:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable, and no sources, reliable or otherwise. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 19:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Subject of the article clearly exists; nothing else matters. Sources are only necessary for direct quotes and for statements someone is challenging, so the lack thereof is not a valid reason to delete. If you have a problem with lack of sources, perhaps you should do some productive work yourself rather than lazily deleting the hard work of others because you can't be bothered to do anything positive for the encyclopedia. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 19:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from personal attacks. Nsk92 (talk) 20:57, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As most people know, User:Kmweber is excempt from the civility policy and pretty much every policy on here. He is free to attack other editors. Majorly ^talk 23:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources. You've got to admire Kurt's rabid inclusionism, though. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but not per Kurt. There do seem to be sources, as Nsk92 pointed out. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Certainly needs improvement, expansion and better sourcing, but IMO the subject is notable and passes WP:BIO. First, regarding helping to found the zoo. I did a bit of googling and there is a mention at the website of the Willar library in Indiana that confirms this[4]: "Knecht Building. One of the first buildings at the zoo (named in honor of Karl Kae Knecht, who helped to found the zoo); photo dated 1930 (Knecht 1526)". I'd like to have a better ref but this one is OK for now. GoogleNews[5] and, particularly, GoogleBooks[6] searches show reasonably substantial coverage, including a very recent news-story[7]. There was, for instance, a newstory about him in 1955 whose title starts "Karl Kae Knecht, Famed Cartoonist, Returns To Old Home..."[8]. Also, more significantly, a book "The world of Karl Kae Knecht through his cartoons" was published in 1979, 5 years afte his death[9]. I do not have access to this book at the moment but from what I understood from this link[10], that is a book written by another person, Philip Ensley, professor of history at the University of Evansville, about Knecht's art (with, presumably, a substantial amount of biographical info). I think that this book alone already makes him pass WP:BIO, even though it is not exactly a biography. Nsk92 (talk) 21:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's a university press book devoted to his work, which is certainly enough for notability by any standard. No need to argue further, just expand the article. MBisanz, do you want to withdraw the nom? I can't help thinking it would have been more useful for Kurt to check than to debate general principles. DGG (talk) 22:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable and sourced, in need of expansion and improvement, but that's not a reason for deletion. We don't delete an article if it's too short or written badly. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 01:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep DGG sums it up well. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable individual, with lots of non-trivial mentions in other publications. I happen to agree with Kurt that it's better to look for sources than to go straight to AfD. Majorly ^talk 13:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ff m 00:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Luminary (album)

No consensus keep almost two years ago. Band just deleted at AfD and there's still no evidence this album is notable. Adding for the same reason

TravellingCari 19:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Album by red link band. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence of notability. --DAJF (talk) 22:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above: fails WP:GNG. Cliff smith ^talk 05:19, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We've decided the band isn't notable and there's no evidence the album is more notable than the band. --Samuel J. Howard (talk) 17:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not fit WP:N. abf /talk to me/ 19:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ff m 00:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Bobobo-bo Bo-bobo character fusions

This list of characters does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. They are all pretty much one-shot gag characters that have no real importance outside of their one or two appearances (as with many jokes from television shows like The Simpsons and Family Guy). TTN (talk) 18:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This one does not belong in an encyclopedia. The significant part of it is already in the main article, and the details are totally nonencyclopedic. There is thus no need for a further merge, and the article title is useless as a search term, so there's no use in redirecting from it. I am delighted to find at least one of these where I totally agree with TTN about what should be done. DGG (talk) 22:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and DGG. This is completely unencyclopedic and redundant. The relevant stuff is already where it belongs. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. When I originally created the page it was moreso to try and remove them from a growing page of other characters but in a sense it is just senseless joke characters that can be mentioned briefly and without spoilers in the article itself. -StrangerAtaru (talk) 01:46, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete original author weighed in, so I think it may be snowing. JuJube (talk) 03:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. Stifle (talk) 14:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Everything was mentiont. After getting a short overwiev I can just agree. abf /talk to me/ 19:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per (gasp!) DGG. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 22:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Villains in Bobobo-bo Bo-bobo. Content can be merged at editorial discretion. (non-admin closure) Protonk (talk) 06:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Czar Baldy Bald IV

This character does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 18:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Bobobo-bo Bo-bobo characters. Unnotable character that fails WP:N, WP:PLOT, and WP:WAF. A merge discussion should have been done before AfDing as quite a few of that series individual character articles need merging. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per common consensus, WP:BEFORE, and the suggestion of what used to be WP:FICT to List of Bobobo-bo Bo-bobo characters. Character does not seem to have become independently notable outside of the series. And like AnmaFinotera, I would like to point out that WP:BEFORE strongly urges merge discussions before taking to AfD. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as the general rule for these. It's a shame the unnecessary work on writing these was done in the first place, but they could have been dealt with more easily than this. A delete would in any case be incorrect, because there should always be a redirect from names of this sort. If there is difficulty in explaining the need for merging to the editors involved in the series of articles, there are plenty of us who would be glad to help on the talk pages. DGG (talk) 22:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Villains in Bobobo-bo Bo-bobo. Protect the redirect to prevent resurrection.Kww (talk) 23:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Kww. Fairly standard. JuJube (talk) 04:04, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Villains in Bobobo-bo Bo-bobo per all above. Stifle (talk) 14:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. seicer | talk | contribs 19:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Terri McGreggor

This character does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 18:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete & redirect to List of Degrassi: The Next Generation characters. The character isn't notable per guidelines to warrant an individual article. RMHED (talk) 18:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and relevant information into List of Degrassi: The Next Generation characters or the actor/actress's main article. iMatthew (talk) 19:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep major characters should have an article. The understanding of the topic is helped by some recapitulation of the plot, which can, of course, be sourced from the work itself. I see no OR. The series is composed of the characters & plot, and the N is composite, and not distinguishable--the GNG is not rationally applicable to fictional characters, and there isn't any agreed alternative, but common sense would suggest at least to me that merge is appropriate for minor, but not major characters to prevent the article from being unwieldy. It's really just a format question, though. Even If one does not want to do this, then an extended discussion of the characters should be merged into the list--devoting similar space to minor and major characters is not rational article writing. But in any case, a redirect from the names of at least major characters is essential. Hence, I think nominating multiple articles of this sort when merging or redirection would do is excessive, and, when carried out in bulk this way, I suggest should be viewed as disruptive. My opinion. And my apology for copying this into the other delete proposals for the major characters, but the exact same argument applies. DGG (talk) 22:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything verifiable into the list per iMatthew. (Note that as things stand, that is a "delete", because there are no sources at all on the article. Stifle (talk) 14:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything of worth into a/the List of characters. Completely unsourced, article is a fine example of what wikipedia is not for (WP:NOT#PLOT). – sgeureka ^t•c 18:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Main character from major Canadian show with a large number of featured article/lists. It will be gotten to eventually. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge per everyone, notable unoriginal research verified in reliable sources. Needs to exist in some capacity. Also per boilerplate nomination “rationales” across multiple AfDs.--209.247.22.85 (talk) 00:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. seicer | talk | contribs 19:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Brooks

This character does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 18:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete & redirect to List of Degrassi: The Next Generation characters. The character isn't notable per guidelines to warrant an individual article. RMHED (talk) 18:50, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and relevant information into List of Degrassi: The Next Generation characters or the actor/actress's main article. iMatthew (talk) 19:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep major characters should have an article. The understanding of the topic is helped by some recapitulation of the plot, which can, of course, be sourced from the work itself. I see no OR. The series is composed of the characters & plot, and the N is composite, and not distinguishable--the GNG is not rationally applicable to fictional characters, and there isn't any agreed alternative, but common sense would suggest at least to me that merge is appropriate for minor, but not major characters to prevent the article from being unwieldy. It's really just a format question, though. Even If one does not want to do this, then an extended discussion of the characters should be merged into the list--devoting similar space to minor and major characters is not rational article writing. But in any case, a redirect from the names of at least major characters is essential. DGG (talk) 22:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything in the article that is cited and backed up into the list. Stifle (talk) 14:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article should not be deleted, because this article tells about a main character. It may not seem notable to some non-fans of the show, but it is. It provides info on Jimmy throughout the show. Giving some info on the character for people who haven't seen the last 5 seasons. If this article gets deleted, the only info on Jimmy Brooks will be a small synopsis on the Degrassi character's page. Also, I do not find how this article is non-notable and eligible for deletion. SidekickJermaine (talk)
- Note: I de-bolded the majority of this comment (it was 100% bolded) as it has no more weight than the other comments. – sgeureka ^t•c 18:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything of worth into a/the List of characters. Article is a fine example of what wikipedia is not for (WP:NOT#PLOT). – sgeureka ^t•c 18:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Major character from major Canadian show with a large number of featured article/lists. It will be gotten to eventually. Also, if our policies and guidelines lead to the conclusion that an article viewed 10,000 times a month is unfit for WP, then it's time to change them, not delete this article. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Peregrine Fisher. The purpose of our 'independent sources' requirement for notability has been to use an impartial standard... if independent sources talk about something then it is probably of significant enough interest to the public for inclusion in Wikipedia. However, now that page view statistics are fairly stable we have another impartial standard available... pages that people actually read (more than 300 times per day in this case) are not just 'probably of significant enough interest', but demonstrably so. --CBD 17:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. seicer | talk | contribs 19:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Nelson

This character does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 18:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete & redirect to List of Degrassi: The Next Generation characters. The character isn't notable per guidelines to warrant an individual article. RMHED (talk) 18:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and relevant information into List of Degrassi: The Next Generation characters or the actor/actress's main article. iMatthew (talk) 19:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep major characters should have an article. The understanding of the topic is helped by some recapitulation of the plot, which can, of course, be sourced from the work itself. I see no OR. The series is composed of the characters & plot, and the N is composite, and not distinguishable--the GNG is not rationally applicable to fictional characters, and there isn't any agreed alternative, but common sense would suggest at least to me that merge is appropriate for minor, but not major characters to prevent the article from being unwieldy. It's really just a format question, though. Even If one does not want to do this, then an extended discussion of the characters should be merged into the list--devoting similar space to minor and major characters is not rational article writing. But in any case, a redirect from the names of at least major characters is essential. Hence, I think nominating multiple articles of this sort when merging or redirection would do is excessive, and, when carried out in bulk this way, I suggest should be viewed as disruptive. My opinion. And my apology for copying this into the other delete proposals for the major characters, but the exact same argument applies. DGG (talk) 22:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything in the article that is cited and backed up into the list. Stifle (talk) 14:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The main character of an award-winning television series. Candyo32 (talk) 03:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything of worth into a/the List of characters. Completely unsourced, article is a fine example of what wikipedia is not for (WP:NOT#PLOT). – sgeureka ^t•c 16:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Main character from major Canadian show with a large number of featured article/lists. It will be gotten to eventually. Also, if our policies and guidelines lead to the conclusion that an article viewed 20,000 times a month is unfit for WP, then it's time to change them, not delete this article. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ff m 00:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wild Dog (Time Crisis)

This character does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 18:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Time Crisis (series)#Characters as it cannot stand as an article itself. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 20:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect The notability arguement is inherently false, as this is the only game character to have appeared in every incarnation of the game, however your grounds of OR and to a greater extent RS are very much a valid reason to delete. I prefer to see the article kept, preferable as its current idependent self, however I am open to merging if the community decides that the merge would be in the best interst of the encyclopedia. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge although major characters should generally have an article, this is the only major character in the series, and could properly be merged. The N argument is irrelevant if one merges, of course. And in any case, a redirect from the names of at least major characters is essential. DGG (talk) 22:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Ilikepie. Stifle (talk) 14:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge per everyone. Needs to exist in some capacity. --63.3.1.130 (talk) 14:54, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as merging will only make the "Time Crisis Characters" page about 70KB in length (which is going to be a bit too long). 71.57.74.109 (talk) 13:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Although opinions tend towards merge. Exactly what to do with this article can be worked out on its talk page. Stifle (talk) 09:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vic Viper

This character does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 18:38, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge although major characters should generally have an article, this is the only major character in the series, and could properly be merged. The N argument is irrelevant if one merges, of course. Merge is needed here, not redirect, for it isn't discussed in the main article, where it easily can be--the length is not excessive. And in any case, a redirect from the names of at least major characters is essential. Hence, I think nominating multiple articles of this sort when merging or redirection would do is excessive, shows a clear misunderstanding of deletion policy that redirects or merges are preferred when possible. DGG (talk) 22:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gradius (series). No sense in merging unreferenced, unencyclopedic material. MuZemike (talk) 23:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MuZemike (talk) 23:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Vic Viper is an icon that represents Gradius and so this article should not be deleted, and while I wouldn't be opposed to a merge if done properly, nominating an obviously iconic character to force the process is not something I'll have a hand in. So my vote is to Keep. JuJube (talk) 04:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Vic Viper isn't just major entity in Gradius. It also major entity in other series such as Zone of the Ender 2 and Sky Girl. Merge with Gradius most likely narrow the coverage on that area. L-Zwei (talk) 05:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Notable to Gradius, but not notable as a cameo to the series he cameos in. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep/merge. Vic Viper is an iconic character of Konami, its appearance is not limited to the Gradius series.(Even if you include the Parodius series as a sub-series) I don't know if it could be sourced or not, I know of none for the time being, yet it is very obvious that Konami included it in quite a lot of games and anime like the ones suggested L-Zwei, it even gained appearance in the love sim series Tokimeki Memorial, twice(PC Engine version and 3). The busou shinki design competition winner also claimt to have its design inspired by Vic Viper (It is inspired by the Anubis Version Vic Viper from ZOE) which could be sourced from the June, 2008 issue of Dengeki Hobby Magazine and a model was built for it in the August, 2008 issue. I must say that the current article is in a real poor state, but it seems like poorly written is never a good argument in having it deleted. MythSearcher^talk 06:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep/mergePer DGG and Mythsearcher. -- Banjeboi 08:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 00:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James McKinley (football coach)

Does not appear to meet WP:BIO, WP:ATHLETE or WP:NOTABILITY and article lacks non-trivial coverage in reliable, independent sources. See also a similar AFD recently in progress at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walter J. West. Kittybrewster ☎ 18:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep exceeds WP:BIO, WP:ATHLETE and WP:NOTABILITY. Stub article, yes. Head coach for at least two colleges in college football. Historical figure.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO and WP:NOTE in that article lacks non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. -Djsasso (talk) 21:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Prairie View is now a fairly important university--not sure about the status of the team in 1982. However, there are likely to be print sources, and the article should not be abandoned until someone does a proper search. DGG (talk) 23:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I don't know a lot about this topic, but if this guy has been the head coach for two college teams, then there is probably reliable third-party coverage out there. Keep so that editors can have a chance to find sources. No prejudice against deletion later, if this person is indeed non-notable. Randomran (talk) 19:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request As discussed on the AfD talk page, if this article (or any of the series of articles) is closed as a delete, please kindly first move the article to User:Paulmcdonald/Articlename, where "Articlename" is the name of the article (or articles) being removed. Also, please note the new page location at User:Paulmcdonald/deletedcoach so we can be sure to find the moved page.
Why? There have been, at present count, 58 articles of our project placed on the AfD list and there is just not enough time to adequately and appropriately respond and ultimately improve the articles themselves. This would give the project memebers time to work on improving the articles. This request should in no way imply that I believe that the article (or articles) in quesiton should be deleted at this time. I am making a simple cut-n-paste request due to the sheer volume of AfDs in such a short period of time.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per Randomran 09er (talk) 02:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update Article has been updated with additional information and sources. He coached at three different colleges for over 100 games.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't seem to meet WP:BIO. Stifle (talk) 10:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep - notable enough. expand the stub, don't delete it. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update made revisions, added more sources.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Likely plenty more sources available but not archived online. -- Banjeboi 07:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've added a half-dozen offline sources, rearranged the sections into chronological order, and added information about his position as executive director and creator of the Heritage Bowl. JKBrooks85 (talk) 23:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Synergy 00:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conway Haymen

Does not appear to meet WP:BIO, WP:ATHLETE or WP:NOTABILITY and article lacks non-trivial coverage in reliable, independent sources. See also a similar AFD recently in progress at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walter J. West. Kittybrewster ☎ 18:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep exceeds WP:BIO, WP:ATHLETE and WP:NOTABILITY. Stub article, yes. Notable head coach of a notable football program in college football Division I.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ fails WP:BIO and WP:NOTE in that article lacks non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. -Djsasso (talk) 21:28, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep played for the Houston Oilers. -Djsasso (talk) 23:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Prairie View is now a fairly important historically black university --not sure about the status of the team in the 1980s. However, there are likely to be print sources, and the article should not be abandoned until someone does a proper search. Pre-web information about this and similar universities is relatively difficult to find, but they are nonetheless important historically DGG (talk) 23:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Hayman's coaching career drew coverage in the Washington Post, Los Angeles Times and others. He's a member of the University of Delaware Athletic Hall of Fame. He played six seasons with the Houston Oilers. --Samuel J. Howard (talk) 18:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request As discussed on the AfD talk page, if this article (or any of the series of articles) is closed as a delete, please kindly first move the article to User:Paulmcdonald/Articlename, where "Articlename" is the name of the article (or articles) being removed. Also, please note the new page location at User:Paulmcdonald/deletedcoach so we can be sure to find the moved page.
Why? There have been, at present count, 58 articles of our project placed on the AfD list and there is just not enough time to adequately and appropriately respond and ultimately improve the articles themselves. This would give the project memebers time to work on improving the articles. This request should in no way imply that I believe that the article (or articles) in quesiton should be deleted at this time. I am making a simple cut-n-paste request due to the sheer volume of AfDs in such a short period of time.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Moved and Updated Article I moved from Conway Haymen to Conway Hayman to correct the spelling of the last name. I have also added more information to the article with more sources.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:37, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as NFL player for six seasons. matt91486 (talk) 22:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, played in NFL. Stifle (talk) 14:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ff m 00:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Haney Catchings

Does not appear to meet WP:BIO, WP:ATHLETE or WP:NOTABILITY and article lacks non-trivial coverage in reliable, independent sources. See also a similar AFD recently in progress at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walter J. West. Kittybrewster ☎ 18:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep exceeds WP:BIO, WP:ATHLETE and WP:NOTABILITY. Notable head coach in college football at two college/universies for 10 seasons, including breaking the longest losing streak in college football history.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:BIO or WP:NOTE in that there are no reliable non-trivial sources in the article. -Djsasso (talk) 21:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Response again, how is "Sports Illustrated" a trivial source?--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The article is not specifically about him. In order for coverageto be non-trivial the article has to be about the subject. Not about something else that mentions the subject. -Djsasso (talk) 23:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep head coach at 2 important historically black universities over a long period. There are likely to be print sources, and the article should not be abandoned until someone does a proper search. Pre-web information about this and similar universities is relatively difficult to find, but they are nonetheless important historically. As Wikipedia is intended to be a comprehensive encyclopedia, stub articles should not be removed untill they can be properly worked on. DGG (talk) 23:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. His prosecution in an expense report scandal led to national coverage: Seattle Times, Los Angeles Times. In a book, Sports Illustrated writer Rick Telander mentions his alleged brutal treatment of his players that led to a boycott. The boycott was also reported in the New York Times.--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 18:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request As discussed on the AfD talk page, if this article (or any of the series of articles) is closed as a delete, please kindly first move the article to User:Paulmcdonald/Articlename, where "Articlename" is the name of the article (or articles) being removed. Also, please note the new page location at User:Paulmcdonald/deletedcoach so we can be sure to find the moved page.
Why? There have been, at present count, 58 articles of our project placed on the AfD list and there is just not enough time to adequately and appropriately respond and ultimately improve the articles themselves. This would give the project memebers time to work on improving the articles. This request should in no way imply that I believe that the article (or articles) in quesiton should be deleted at this time. I am making a simple cut-n-paste request due to the sheer volume of AfDs in such a short period of time.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Article Update The content of the article has been updated and more sources have been added.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, seems to have generated quite a bit of coverage. However, needs to be carefully watched for WP:BLP violations. Stifle (talk) 14:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Samuel J. Howard and caution on the BLP issues. -- Banjeboi 06:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Question as written now, how do ediotrs feel about BLP?--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep - go easy on negative notoriety, there are a few statements surrounding the not allowing players access to class/academic stuff that need sources, and maybe could be phrased a bit differently. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:26, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Samuel. JKBrooks85 (talk) 23:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure) sources have been added and consensus seems to be that the article meets WP:N. - Icewedge (talk) 03:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald Beard

Does not appear to meet WP:BIO, WP:ATHLETE or WP:NOTABILITY and article lacks non-trivial coverage in reliable, independent sources. See also a similar AFD recently in progress at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walter J. West. Kittybrewster ☎ 18:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Coach with the worst record in college football history. Notable events in life, reliable non-trivial and independent sources, meets many criteria of notability.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet WP:BIO or WP:NOTE. Unfortunately Paul McDonald is incorrect that sources are non-trival. All the sources on the page are trivial mentions. In order to be non-trivial the article has to be about the subject, not the team with a passing mention to the coach. -Djsasso (talk) 21:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Response Sports Illustrated is trivial?--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep coach at historically black university. That they kept him for four seasons without any wins at all does seem a little remarkable, so there probably is some interesting material to be found on him. There are likely to be print sources, and the article should not be abandoned until someone does a proper search. Pre-web information about this and similar universities is relatively difficult to find, but they are nonetheless important historically. As Wikipedia is intended to be a comprehensive encyclopedia, stub articles should not be removed untill they can be properly worked on. DGG (talk) 23:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sports Illustrated wrote about him in a long article. Also, the comparison to Walter West is flawed. He coached at a Division III school, while Beard competed in Division I-AA. The man has the worst record of all time, which should be notable enough regardless of where he worked.Clarityfiend (talk) 00:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the Sports Illustrated profile makes it an unquestionable keep, not that it wasn't already. Additionally, the nominator really should learn the difference between NCAA Divisions before making mass nominations. matt91486 (talk) 15:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request As discussed on the AfD talk page, if this article (or any of the series of articles) is closed as a delete, please kindly first move the article to User:Paulmcdonald/Articlename, where "Articlename" is the name of the article (or articles) being removed. Also, please note the new page location at User:Paulmcdonald/deletedcoach so we can be sure to find the moved page.
Why? There have been, at present count, 58 articles of our project placed on the AfD list and there is just not enough time to adequately and appropriately respond and ultimately improve the articles themselves. This would give the project memebers time to work on improving the articles. This request should in no way imply that I believe that the article (or articles) in quesiton should be deleted at this time. I am making a simple cut-n-paste request due to the sheer volume of AfDs in such a short period of time.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails to meet WP:BIO. Stifle (talk) 10:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have little doubt that plenty of sources are available. That the team had such a losing streak makes it more likely. The only issue is finding them offline and recording them here. It's unfortunate sometimes that we rely on Google as a measure as I have little doubt that more is available. -- Banjeboi 06:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've added four offline sources: three from the Houston Chronicle and one from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Fortunately, one of those included a limited biography of his educational career, which I included. JKBrooks85 (talk) 22:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ff m 00:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hensley Sapenter

Does not appear to meet WP:BIO, WP:ATHLETE or WP:NOTABILITY and article lacks non-trivial coverage in reliable, independent sources. See also a similar AFD recently in progress at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walter J. West. Kittybrewster ☎ 18:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep exceeds WP:BIO, WP:ATHLETE and WP:NOTABILITY. Notable head coach in college football as a part of the biggest losing streak in college football.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Paulmacdonald. These coaches should seriously be lumped in. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 21:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The streak is notable, the coaches are not. Fails to meet WP:NOTE in that there is a lack of non-trivial sources. -21:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
weak keep I'm getting less comfortable about deleting these without time for proper sourcing. I'm not sure we made the right decision at the West Afd, tho I said delete at that discussion.DGG (talk) 23:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. He is mentioned and quoted in the Sports Illustrated article I cited for Beard. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:09, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request As discussed on the AfD talk page, if this article (or any of the series of articles) is closed as a delete, please kindly first move the article to User:Paulmcdonald/Articlename, where "Articlename" is the name of the article (or articles) being removed. Also, please note the new page location at User:Paulmcdonald/deletedcoach so we can be sure to find the moved page.
Why? There have been, at present count, 58 articles of our project placed on the AfD list and there is just not enough time to adequately and appropriately respond and ultimately improve the articles themselves. This would give the project memebers time to work on improving the articles. This request should in no way imply that I believe that the article (or articles) in quesiton should be deleted at this time. I am making a simple cut-n-paste request due to the sheer volume of AfDs in such a short period of time.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article Improved I have improved the article, added more sources, etc.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete due to lack of non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. Stifle (talk) 14:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Synergy 00:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Johnson (American football)

Does not appear to meet WP:BIO, WP:ATHLETE or WP:NOTABILITY and article lacks non-trivial coverage in reliable, independent sources. See also a similar AFD recently in progress at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walter J. West. Kittybrewster ☎ 18:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep exceeds WP:BIO, WP:ATHLETE and WP:NOTABILITY. Notable NFL player, notable head coach in college football and notable player in college football.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - this assertion of notability isn't as clear, but considering this as a series of athletic coaches in a notable team and other criterion, it does satisfy WP:ATHLETE. I would recommend a rewrite to show clearer assertion of notability though. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 20:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Fails WP:BIO and WP:NOTE as its references do not have non-trivial coverage. -Djsasso (talk) 21:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Played for the Miami Dolphins. -Djsasso (talk) 23:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep Nominator neglected to link the result of the prior AfD on this subject. Townlake (talk) 22:17, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Actually, don't even need that. He was a member of the 1988 Dolphins. Townlake (talk) 22:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is actually a full sports Illustrated article devoted totally to his coaching career. That's enough for notability. And in any case, there's what was found above about his professional career. Careless article writing not to look for background information like that, but he's notable. DGG (talk) 23:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request As discussed on the AfD talk page, if this article (or any of the series of articles) is closed as a delete, please kindly first move the article to User:Paulmcdonald/Articlename, where "Articlename" is the name of the article (or articles) being removed. Also, please note the new page location at User:Paulmcdonald/deletedcoach so we can be sure to find the moved page.
Why? There have been, at present count, 58 articles of our project placed on the AfD list and there is just not enough time to adequately and appropriately respond and ultimately improve the articles themselves. This would give the project memebers time to work on improving the articles. This request should in no way imply that I believe that the article (or articles) in quesiton should be deleted at this time. I am making a simple cut-n-paste request due to the sheer volume of AfDs in such a short period of time.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep as NFL player. matt91486 (talk) 22:31, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this one seems to pass WP:ATHLETE. Stifle (talk) 10:18, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was I am not inclined to relist this a third time; there is clearly no consensus to delete.. I am not relisting this a third time; there is clearly Stifle (talk) 09:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Geobrowsing

non-notable neologism. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 20:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lego K^ontribs T^alk M 00:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it actually would appear this is a new technology, not just a neologism. See the following news items: 1.) Sprint unveils location-based ‘geobrowsing’ on eve of WiMax launch (Yes, that's a blog post, but it is from a highly respected computer tech site, ZDNet), 2.) Sprint Assembles broad range of partners to deliver “geobrowsing”, 3.) In the Wireless World, 3 Things Matter: Location, Location, Location, 4.) Leading Location-Based Service Providers Turn to Eventful for Comprehensive Local Event Content. Now, it could well be that these are all articles stemming from a single press release, perhaps by Sprint, but it does bear further scrutiny, and if kept, the article would most certainly need to be re-written. Ariel♥Gold 04:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 18:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- The thousands of blogs and what not in G make the good stuff hard to find . GScholar [11] shows 29 items, including several peer reviewed papers and a number of good conference proceedings. . --The product giving rise to most of the ghits in plain G is actually XOHM, see [12]. it appears to be on the point of being introduced [13] - Probably an article for XOHM would be appropriate. Very oddly, nobody seems to have tried yet, but there are several hundred thousand ghits [14] in addition to their own site. and 255 GN items [15] not all of them press releases. DGG (talk) 22:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ff m 00:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clifton Gilliard

Does not appear to meet WP:BIO, WP:ATHLETE or WP:NOTABILITY and article lacks non-trivial coverage in reliable, independent sources. See also a similar AFD recently in progress at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walter J. West. Kittybrewster ☎ 18:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep exceeds WP:BIO, WP:ATHLETE and WP:NOTABILITY. Stub article, yes. Notable head coach in college football and notable player in college football. 1958 national champion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Additional sources/information added.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:45, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep returns decent ghits for a stub BLP. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 20:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request As discussed on the AfD talk page, if this article (or any of the series of articles) is closed as a delete, please kindly first move the article to User:Paulmcdonald/Articlename, where "Articlename" is the name of the article (or articles) being removed. Also, please note the new page location at User:Paulmcdonald/deletedcoach so we can be sure to find the moved page.
Why? There have been, at present count, 58 articles of our project placed on the AfD list and there is just not enough time to adequately and appropriately respond and ultimately improve the articles themselves. This would give the project memebers time to work on improving the articles. This request should in no way imply that I believe that the article (or articles) in quesiton should be deleted at this time. I am making a simple cut-n-paste request due to the sheer volume of AfDs in such a short period of time.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep won National championship 09er (talk) 02:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not appear to meet WP:BIO. Stifle (talk) 14:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment {http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:SUCqdxMusaEJ:www.pvamu.edu/pages/4743.asp+%22Clifton+Gilliard%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us This] may help fill in some biographical info. -- Banjeboi 06:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I find it easy to believe that more comprehensive articles have been written about him but until those are unearthed we have loads of other sources that demonstrate that everything we have is verifiable and true which is why we use sources. -- Banjeboi 06:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination Withdrawn nominator withdrew AfD (non-admin closure). RockManQ (talk) 04:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Dorsey

Does not appear to meet WP:BIO, WP:ATHLETE or WP:NOTABILITY and article lacks non-trivial coverage in reliable, independent sources. See also a similar AFD recently in progress at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walter J. West. Kittybrewster ☎ 18:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep played in the National Football League for three years, two with the San Diego Chargers and a third with the Kansas City Chiefs. Coached college football at two schools for eleven seasons. Two-year all-American as a collegiate player.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 3 years an NFL player meets WP:ATHLETE--Cube lurker (talk) 19:57, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - definitely meets WP:ATHLETE standards. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 20:50, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Played in the NFL. -Djsasso (talk) 21:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Another example of careless article writing, but that's no reason for deletion. And the information about his professional career had been added at the time of the deletion nomination !!! DGG (talk) 23:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn. Kittybrewster ☎ 03:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect title to Amusement ride. History will be intact per GFDL and to mine for info to expand parent article. Keeper ǀ 76 20:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Twin Flip

Doesn't seem to be a notable form of ride. Prod removed by IP without comment. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 00:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 18:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: unsourced article about non-notable subject. Also, the article seems to be unclear. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 02:24, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems like a legit term and notable enough, although at first glance there's no taxonomy-of-carnival-rides article to serve as a pattern or a merge target. I'll have a go at it to expand and legitimize. --Lockley (talk) 01:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Well the list of amusement rides is at Amusement ride. Seems to be a mix of kinds of rides, branded rides, and specific rides, so it's kind of a mess, but I'm thinking Twin Flip belongs as a separate article and should stay. --Lockley (talk) 01:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Amusement ride. Can be covered there. Stifle (talk) 09:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 23:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Jones (Darts Player)

Non-notable darts player, didn't even play in the Welsh Open, may be WP:HOAX. Raphie (talk) 14:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not in the top 30 men's ranking in Wales[16]. In fact, does not appear at all on the Welsh Darts Organisation website per this Google search[17]. Has not made any international appearances for Wales per BDO[18]. The only Daniel Jones on the BDO website per this search[19] represents England and Leicestershire. Delete as Unverifiable. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 18:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on failing WP:N, WP:RS, WP:V -- Logical Premise^Ergo? 18:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pe nom. Kittybrewster ☎ 19:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 23:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Rauscher

Fails WP:PROF. Awards listing are essentially resume padding, and there does not seem to be any claim to fame. No notice of her in the outside the fringe community within which she has been able to garner mention (e.g. Uri Geller's website mentions her as a "scientist" who supports him). Lack of mainstream independent, reliable sources which acknowledge her notability make her article unworthy of Wikipedia and without such sources, editors will be unable to write in a neutral fashion. See related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hypotheses of consciousness and spacetime. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I have looked for reliable, independent, third party sources that might establish notability and found nothing. Yilloslime (t) 18:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Kittybrewster ☎ 19:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As for RSs, 19 publications in Scopus. One significant recent one, in Physical Review Letters , Volume 68, Issue 21, 1992, Pages 3152-3155 "Ionization plus excitation of helium by fast electron and proton impact" by F̈ulling,S., Bruch,R , Rauscher, E.A., Neill, P.A , Träbert, E., Heckmann, P.H., McGuire, J.H. cited by 17 papers, giving affiliation for her at Univ. Nevada, Reno. Fulling is the senior author, and a moderately important physicist. This is not sufficient for notability as a researcher. DGG (talk) 21:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. As far as I can see she's published a few psi/fringe papers and thats about it. Guyonthesubway (talk) 22:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons given by ScienceApologist and DGG. I suppose she might be notable as a fringe figure, rather than an academic, but not to the extent that anyone outside that has noticed, if the first ten pages of google are a guide. N p holmes (talk) 09:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all of the listed reasons. simply not notable Theserialcomma (talk) 10:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete in addition to lack of notability, the whole thing strikes me as a means to get traffic to her associated web sites. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DGG. --Crusio (talk) 19:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete per N p holmes et al, fails WP:PROF, and her WP:FRINGE activities don't raise her to passing the WP:BIO standard of notability. Pete.Hurd (talk) 19:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - she is notable neither in her role as a professional physicist, nor in her role as a fringe science proponent. --SJK (talk) 07:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DGG, not enough significance. We66er (talk) 05:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without her fellow crank no reason to have her here.--OMCV (talk) 14:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hypotheses of consciousness and spacetime

This is almost entirely original research (a portion, at least, of which appears to be promoted by Elizabeth Rauscher whose article is also up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elizabeth Rauscher). Essentially, the article as is inappropriately synthesizes a large number of standard run-of-the-mill statements about spacetime and puts on pretense that they are somehow discussing "consciousness". Let such ideas gain the notice of those in the relevant academic fields before Wikipedia has an article on it, please. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No vote The article was so far over my head that I couldn't what it was talking about. People who understand the topic should judge this one. Steve Dufour (talk) 19:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hokum. Vague references to Einstein? Check. Connection between general relatively and PSYCHICS? Check. Onslaught of related and reasonable theories with nonsense interspersed? Check. Namechecking principal author? Check. This is WP:OR promoting an unpublished pseudoscientific connection between the "paranormal" and a theory that plenty of people talk about (general relativity) but few understand. Protonk (talk) 22:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I dont need to understand it to see that its sources are trash. Guyonthesubway (talk) 22:38, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Oh yeah, that is original synthesis. In addition to being wrong (see Relativity of simultaneity for just one example), I cannot find any indication that the major premise of this essay is treated in any reliable sources. - Eldereft (cont.) 00:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is just a hocus pocus of terms, simple saying that the brain can effect the physical word and time. The problem is, as the page already says, not one of the ideas have been tested. So until there is some solid evidence that there is a way to test such a theory and a test is performed, its just a notion with out much of a following. What I object to the most is the obscurest use of terms in such a nonsensical way, its a disservice to those reading wikipedia to include nonsensical articles. Hardyplants (talk) 11:48, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's been there four years and not marked as a stub, so one is entitled to expect a bit of maturity. There is a "References" section but nothing in the text is linked to it (no use of <ref>), so at best it would be WP:OR. It seems to be full of unsubstantiated speculation and name-dropping. If there is anything useful to be said on this topic, it woud be better to start again from scratch, based on WP:RS. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 11:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overhaul There may be a place for this article yet! A non-BS source came up from a google search, and it's from the University of Arizona, with plenty of relevant citations to boot. At the very least it deserves a place in Quantum consciousness. The physics of all these quantum consciousness theories is very much BS, but it's the kind of BS that a lot of respected scientists write papers in support of. SamuelRiv (talk) 14:09, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We already have Quantum mysticism, Quantum mind, Quantum brain dynamics, and doubtless several others. - Eldereft (cont.) 17:16, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

+ Orch-OR, Holonomic brain theory, Implicate_and_Explicate_Order_according_to_David_Bohm#A_common_grounding_for_consciousness_and_matter, Electromagnetic theories of consciousness, etc., etc. etc. Wikipedia, where far-fringe theories of consciousness come to live long and prosper... Pete.Hurd (talk) 20:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A fringe "theory" at best. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing wrong with having fringe theories listed in Wikipedia as long as they are notable and honestly represented. But this page fails to communicate any real information and the topic seems to be covered in a number of other like minded articles. Hardyplants (talk) 10:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete complete bollocks that fails to rise to the standards of WP:FRINGE. Pete.Hurd (talk) 19:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete no evidence this is a significant view. There are lots of theories out there that try to mix theoretical physics with paranormal/mystical concerns. As a group, they are notable, and some of the more well-known theories in the group would be notable as well, but then again, there are quite a few theories in that area which just have not been widely propagated enough to be notable for Wikipedia. This, as far as I can tell, is such a theory. --SJK (talk) 07:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. We66er (talk) 05:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 23:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Grier

Claims in article of meeting WP:Notability are weak. nba.com doesn't show him having played a professional game; gnews search comes up with few hits about this Tony Grier (many more about a lung transplant patient). Source in article is a wiki; claims of notability there are better, but unsourced. Contested prod. Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for unverifiability--strange: if this had been written and researched a bit better it would never come up for deletion, given that subject is a published author. (Article on Hoopedia is just as poorly written.) Drmies (talk) 17:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Someone named Tony Grier was selected by the Spurs in the 1982 NBA Draft [20], but he wasn't their first draft pick by any definition. (The Spurs drafted two players ahead of him in that year's draft, and had been participating in the NBA Draft since 1977.) Zagalejo^^^ 18:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't verify what's on our stub here, let alone the hoopedia article. He was drafted in the fourth round, never played a game. Only thing he "might" be notable for is the book, but if that is the case the book should have the article, not him. Wizardman 20:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by Orangemike. Non-admin closure. TN‑X-Man 03:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[Related logs: Comp performance group Comp cams — Athaenara ✉ 04:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)][reply]

Competition cams

Recreation of twice-deleted material by CSD; advertising; non-notability. Article could potentially be improved, as per discussion with Tnxman307. — Yavoh 16:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This company does not demonstrate notability that is verifiable in reliable sources. TN‑X-Man 16:28, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am copying the following from the AfD talk page for the author. TN‑X-Man 21:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose for the recreation is OBVIOUSLY to make the article both more legitimate and neutral. It contains multiple sources, is well-researched, and has absolutely no legitimate reason to be deleted. On another note, the admins should feel free to edit the page as needed, since that is one of the principles that Wikipedia was founded upon. The admins claim that they encourage civility, but I must refute that on account of this nomination for deletion with no legitimate reason for doing so. On another note, I will continue to recreate this page until it stays should you rudely delete a my well-researched hard work. Also, I highly doubt the owners and founders of the company would appreciate it either, considering Edelbrock IS in your "encyclopedia," which an article that is written in a very similar fashion to this one. Good day.

Both of you are incorrect in your OPINIONS of "Advertising;Non-Notability". Perhaps you should try actually READING the articles. Slow down, take your time, and check each source to verify how incredibly wrong this petition really is. Also, TNXman should copy the message that is on Yavoh's discussion page. It is a much more persuasive argument. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jabarke1 (talk • contribs) 21:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No non-trivial coverage from reliable sources. Compcams.com, powerperformancenews.com and compperformancegroup.com aren't independent, reliable sources. Alexa is trivial. The sema.org links turn up nothing, and the semahof.com and zekesauto.com links are trivial and non-reliable. Jabarke1, take a look at good look at WP:RS and WP:CORP (and WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF while you're at it). Also note that articles deleted through this process that are recreated without addressing the issues that got them deleted can be speedily deleted and can result in the editor being blocked. TheMolecularMan (talk) 00:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete and salt: blatant advertising that keeps reappearing over and over again. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 02:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alberto Alfonso de Gonzalez y Rodrigo

This article is in the first person and in bad English. It is difficult to see if this character is important, but it smells like self-promotion. All edits appear to be by a single user, except for one early request for expansion. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 16:08, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this doesn't merely smell of self-promotion, it stinks up the place. While this awaits deletion I made an edit or two, for some factual correctness. Drmies (talk) 17:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't make heads or tails of this. JuJube (talk) 04:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The first part, a history of the title, is for the most part a direct Babelfish translation of the Spanish Wikipedia Marquesado de Aguilar de Campoo page [21]. It is intended to read something like:

". . . is the present Marquis of Aguilar, a title inherited from [his] maternal ancestors, direct descendants of the House of Lara (also called the Manrique de Lara), who originate in the Kings of Castile, themselves descendants of the early Counts of Castile."

"The Marquesses of Aguilar de Campoo have traditionally held the inherited title of Grand Chancellor of Castile. The Marquesses of Aguilar de Campoo (who were made Grandees of Spain), were originally Lords of that town and its associated holdings, 14th century King Enrique II of Castile confirming his brother Tello of Castile's holdings there. The Catholic Monarchs [i.e. Ferdinand and Isabella] in 1484 elevated Garci Fernandez IV Manrique de Lara, fifth Lord of Aguilar de Campoo, third Count of Castañeda and Buelna, Grand Chancellor of Castile, great-grandson and successor of Don Tello, to the title of Marquess of Aguilar de Campoo."

None of this really tells us much about the subject. We then learn where he was born, where he was educated, and that he had some military training. He has a hero, belongs to a political party and is president of a labor organization, and he travels and helps the poor.

Good for him, but as a Wikipedia page, it suffers from violations of WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR, as well as violating many of the criteria set forward in WP:BLP, not to mention its translation problems. Still, all this might be cleaned up, but there is little point if it fails to meet WP:N. There are two potential claims to notability. First is the title itself. If rightly held, it is unclear that the holding of such a title in Spain, in and of itself, attaches notability to the subject in the English Wikipedia. Likewise, the Spanish Wikipedia Marquesado de Aguilar de Campoo page traces the title to another individual who seems yet to be living, and I find her making claim to the title on several independent web pages, suggesting recent inheritance (too recent to be updated), competing claims or hoax. Second is the leadership of the UNT. This appears to be a legitimate labor organization founded on the principles of his hero, but again we have the same two issues - does this make it notable for English Wikipedia, and is the claim authentic. The Spanish Wikipedia page for the Union [22] states that on 1 May 2008, Rafael Muñiz García, who had been president for 30 years, was replaced by Jorge Garrido San Román. This information is also reported in the organization's newsletter [23] without indication of subsequent change. This claim, then, may represent a hoax. Thus the page currently fails to demonstrate notability and appears dubious regarding both qualifying claims, although the subject does appear to have stood for election on his party's slate, as Alberto Alfonso González Rodrigo, but such activity alone fails to confer notability. Taken together, the retention of this page is hard to justify. Agricolae (talk) 11:48, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Also deleted were the images of the staff and paper. L'Aquatique[talk] 02:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Tide (newspaper)

Non-notable high school newspaper. Can the deleting admin also nuke the photos? Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No attempt to establish notability with third-party RSs. TheMolecularMan (talk) 16:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, delete Wikipedia is not the place to post the mission statement for a high school newspaper, nor, for that matter, to duplicate the website www.dovertide.com ; the much smaller article Dover High School (New Hampshire) would be a good model for how to be concise when writing an article about something that is considered notable. Looks good as far as high school newspapers go, but it rates no more than a paragraph in the article about the school itself. Mandsford (talk) 16:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete student club/activity at a single school. And yeah, the pictures need to go too. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - for all the good reasons mentioned above. Drmies (talk) 17:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A non-notable high school newspaper. Schuym1 (talk) 08:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tha Bizness

Delete nn producers - notability isn't inherited, and no WP:RS found Mayalld (talk) 15:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: agreed with Mayalld. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 02:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted as blatant and obvious misinformation (CSD G3). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amagilacarrions

Delete: Probable hoax; zero ghits for the bird, zero for the alleged discoverer; prod was removed by an anon who, in the same edit, made the text even more ridiculous. Russ (talk) 15:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If it's real, someone would be able to a cite an ornithological journal or some scholarly publication. TheMolecularMan (talk) 16:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Kind of humorous story about a "flesh eating bird" that nobody knew about until just recently. However, it belongs in the same category as the man eating chicken. Title is too long to make a good hoax. Mandsford (talk) 16:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - where's the humor? Drmies (talk) 17:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Somewhere between "flesh eating" and "Scrabble board", I guess. Mandsford (talk) 20:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Edward321 (talk) 23:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. ff m 00:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vulcan starships

No citations to multiple third-party reliable sources to establish notability. All but one citation is for plot, and is cited only to primary sources. Single "real-world" citation is to an unreliable source and is a one-line bit of trivia. --EEMIV (talk) 14:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I seconded the prod, which was contested. I'm not sure this is very controversial. They might have some coverage in that book by the Okuda's but I doubt it since the first real mention of those ships (well, not really a mention) was in First Contact. Cites primary sources and fansites. Consists entirely of plot repetition. Protonk (talk) 15:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Acceptable combination article for major setting elements of a very major series. It is appropriate to bring this material together. The primary sourcing is enough for this sort of material. DGG (talk) 20:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a note, these were relatively minor elements of one series in the Star Trek universe (the final and probably least significant series). For the rest of the Star Trek episodes and movies, first contact with the Vulcans was something in the distant past and their ships were rarely (if ever) mentioned in canon fiction. They were (as the article notes) never presented on screen until the 8th movie (Star Trek: First Contact). They were not there, nor were they in Star Trek: Enterprise, settings. They were ships shown on screen in various battles or situations. This is in contrast to a few Romulan starships which played host to episodes including half of Balance of Terror. I'm not suggesting that use as settings is some sort of shadow critereon by which these episodes should be judged, but if you are planning to do so, I figured you should be informed as to the significance of these ships within the fictional universe. Protonk (talk) 01:12, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article is almost wholly constitutive of plot, with no evidence of having received any significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 20:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:N, in that there does not seem to be any mention of these ships in independent sources. I always provide some leeway for lists ... if someone could even manage to demonstrate that anyone outside of the universe had even made a writeup that went into any detail at all about Vulcan ships, I'd switch to keep.Kww (talk) 23:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Largely for the reason DGG identified. Trek is a work of fiction. Therefore, the only truly reliable sources for "facts" in that fictional universe will be the books, movies, shows, and licensed publications themselves. The Vulcans are a major group in the Trek universe, and the information in the article appears to be pulled together from more than just one episode/book. (Full disclosure, I haven't watched a Trek-type program in over 10 years.) Crypticfirefly (talk) 06:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the case at all. Let's take the X Files, for example. the x files is a work of fiction, but there have been several books written about episodes, characters and themes. For example, "Deny All Knowledge": Reading the X Files, is written by people independent from Fox and covers (among other things) several elements of the X Files quite deeply. The points people are making about WP:PLOT is that we have fairly well established policy that says we shouldn't be in the business of just recapitulating plot details. One of the ways to ensure we don't do that is to limit our coverage of subjects to those which have already been covered by independent sources. There is some dispute as to how fair this is for fictional subject, but it is not impossible, by any stretch. Protonk (talk) 06:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. But I think you have to agree that the ultimate source of information repeated in those X-Files books has to be the show itself. I don't think you can deny that the books are a reliable, verifiable source for the information. Your argument is instead that since no book on Star Trek has been cited, that the information isn't sufficiently important to be included here. That's an entirely different argument and not one that I think is especially valid in this specific context. Further, given the overall notability of Star Trek and its "universe" in general, the thousands of scholarly articles written on the topic, much less role playing guides and what not, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that it is likely that someone can find a third-party reference for this stuff if they go looking. It just isn't going to be me. Now if someone were to suggest that the article be merged in Vulcans or some article on Star Trek spaceships in general, that would be a different story. Crypticfirefly (talk) 15:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right. The ultimate source for the information is the fiction writers. From the standpoint of verifiability, that is helpful. In this case we aren't talking about whether or not the information can be verified but whether or not wikipedia should have an article on the subject. In that case, like it or lump it, our current consensus is that secondary sources determine the answer to that question. There is by no means overwhelming consensus for that result, because it gives the unpleasant outcome of removing large numbers of fictional articles and keeping others for reasons which are arbitrary within the fictional world. In other words, it doesn't let us build a comprehensive fiction reference. It only allows us to cover sub-elements which have received attention from independent sources. Those may be minor or major within the fictional world and they may be the result of causes outside the fictional world. E.G. there are far more possible references for the TOS communicators than most ships, planets or space stations in the Star Trek universe because the "clamshell" cellular phone was basically based on them. I have been trying (along with DGG) to figure out a new guideline for inclusion of fictional subjects but to be honest I don't have any good answers to this problem. In the mean time, I hope you will weigh in on what I see as a first step toward being able to write such a guideline, an RFC about notability guidelines themselves: Wikipedia talk:Notability/RFC:compromise. Protonk (talk) 16:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge along with the other crufty ship list articles in the nav template or delete because of WP:N, WP:UNDUE, WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:SYNTH etc. It's only fair to apply policies and guidelines to highly populuar fiction franchises as well, but I can see how a combined ST Starship list would still be beneficial to wikipedia. – sgeureka ^t•c 16:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ff m 00:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Persepolis F.C. players

WP:POV / WP:OR list of "notable players". Category:Persepolis FC players serves the same purpose. --Jimbo^[online] 14:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possible keep, per this discussion. It's not an AfD, but the reasons behind it are basically the same. No doubt the current criteria of "notable" on this list is inherently POV, but that's a reason for improvement and not deletion. Putting in a similar requirement of 100 apps would be preferable. Of course, being an Iranian club doesn't help with the ability to source this - what with being a rather obscure nation in footballing terms - and if sources for this page can't be found, then I would support deletion. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 15:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In its current form, delete. The article currently has no inclusion criteria, and is therefore not compliant with Wikipedia's NPOV policy. However, if some criteria could be formulated, such as a minimum of 100 appearances for the club, then it could perhaps be kept. – Pee Jay 16:08, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - PeeJay, your complaint is a content issue, not a subject issue. The subject is clearly notable, it's just not structured with explicit criteria at the moment. It's off to a good start in that regard with the World Cup players section (which is clearly meeting a set criteria). matt91486 (talk) 15:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but expand, adding details not in the category (years of career, appearances, goals etc.) Giant Snowman 17:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:47, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. We had a similar deletion discussion about a year ago with the MLB all time roster lists -- take a gander at that discussion for why lists like this not only meet WP policies, but are not a duplication of categories.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bent Penny Records

Non-notable company which fails WP:ORG. Author removed PROD without giving a reason. JD554 (talk) 13:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Captain-tucker (talk) 13:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails notability guidelines. Jor dan ^Contribs 13:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ff m 00:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beraskow's Law

Wikipedia is not for things made up at work one day. 2 results on google. The revised search has 5 pages of results, but none appear to be relevant. WP:OR, WP:V, even possibly WP:NEO problems. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 12:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Neologism not in wide use, and even if it were Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources and really bad math. Edward321 (talk) 14:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per above. Dzhugashvili (talk) 14:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Generally, there are only a few "laws" that are worth writing an article about: Murphy's law, the Peter Principle, Parkinson's law, and Cole's Law. Most of the others are variations on the idea that things will not go as we want them to. Mandsford (talk) 16:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete quickly. Drmies (talk) 17:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Veto this made-up ~~law~~ bill with no reliable sources. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 02:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete made up junk. JuJube (talk) 04:10, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:54, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Only one editor supported deletion, and that only conditionally. Article has been improved; nominator has withdrawn nomination, no other deletes. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 22:17, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PowerDVD

Blatant advertising, speedy deletion was contested. The article and all prior versions are nothing more than a product sell sheet. There are no references and is no independently verifiable information. Wikipedia does not need to host a virtual copy of content from a corporate web site. Jehochman ^Arrr! 12:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Rewrite - Quite a well known piece of software, but the article needs to be rewritten. Dzhugashvili (talk) 13:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A well known piece of consumer software. Spam text is not as bad as many. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps you could find a reference or two. At this point there are not to support these assertions of notability. I believe you, but it would really help the article if it had at least a few references, and if the advertising were removed. Jehochman ^Arrr! 14:08, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Well known software as supported by sources such as [24] and [25]. The article does need some major work though. Rilak (talk) 14:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per reasons above. SF007 (talk) 15:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. Well known software, though lacking refs to show it. I'll take a crack at adding appropriate ones. Arakunem^Talk 17:08, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added some third party reviews to Refs section. Still needs lots of cleanup and inline cites, but this hopefully demonstrates notability. Arakunem^Talk 17:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but cleanup. Notable piece of software, with third-party reviews satisfying notability. If it reads like an ad, that's a content issue, not an AFD issue. 23skidoo (talk) 18:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can't beleive some moron nominated this for deletion. It needs improvement, sure, but PowerDVD is well know, has been going for years and is shipped on many new PCs. For a long time it was one of only two legal DVD players for Windows. Honestly, stop trying to fuck up Wikipedia and do something constructive like improving the article.Mojo-chan (talk) 23:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional speedy delete: erase it if nobody would improve the article. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 02:36, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per everyone. JuJube (talk) 04:10, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am disappointed at the keep comments that fail to provide any evidence of notability, and that fail to reflect any efforts to improve the article. I still do not see references to establish notability, nor do I see evidence that this article can ever be anything more than a stub. Perhaps we could create an article about CyberLink and cover all of the company's products there. This should be done in a non-promotional way. Jehochman ^Talk 18:19, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I added some more material and references. The article is no longer just a stub and goes some way (all the way?) to establishing notability. For example, most PCs have had a DVD capable optical drive since around 1999-2000. Thus, most ship with DVD playing software. The two major DVD players for Windows are PowerDVD and WinDVD, so almost every consumer PC system since around about 2000 has shipped with one of those. PowerDVD and WinDVD are also the only official ways to play HD-DVD and Blu-Ray discs on a PC. To say PowerDVD is not notable is ridiculous and just panders to deletionism. Just because an article needs improvement (which it is getting) is not a reason to delete it. It's a reason to improve it. Instead of trying to destroy stuff on Wikipedia, why not try to organise improvements?Mojo-chan (talk) 21:36, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you very much for your efforts. Jehochman ^Talk 21:48, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree to close this discussion as keep, now that references have been found. Jehochman ^Talk 21:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Léon 2 (film)

Blatant WP:CRYSTAL problems. Only rumoured, and, as the article itself states:

Starring: Mathilda (If the movie ever gona be created that is)

Which isn't promising. Sources cited include imdb (which isn't really reliable), a 6-year old page at thezreview.co.uk which may not be reliable, and another 6-year old page at aintitcool.com, which appears to be a blog. Fails WP:V. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 12:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:BOLLOCKS ;-) -- JediLofty ^{Talk to me}_{Follow me} 12:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per above. Dzhugashvili (talk) 13:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article is purely speculative in nature, with no sources that indicate that the movie will actually ever be made. Fails WP:CRYSTAL, WP:MOVIE. -- BeezHive (talk|contribs) 13:57, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:CRYSTAL, mixed with fan speculation. the only utterance of this alleged sequel on the imdb page for the the original film is in the message board, where a fan petition is posted. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 16:28, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this pure speculation. Cliff smith ^talk 21:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice. Sources are available to fill in all the blanks, but the article is premature. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: plain speculation. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 02:37, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Time to go per WP:SNOW. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:04, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL with no verifiable coverage of this film. Delete it already. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and I third the snowball option. Alientraveller (talk) 18:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawing nom, keep (as nominator, & non-admin). AllynJ (talk | contribs) 17:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Lewis (golfer)

Article says he's an amateur player, thus fails WP:ATHLETE. Captaining the Walker Cup team appears is an assertation of notability, but I'm not sure it's enough to cement notability. I couldn't really find many reliable sources with which to establish notability ([26][27]) outside of the Walker Cup mention. I'm not particularly familiar with golf, however, so I might be wrong here, but this fact, with the lack of numerous reliable sources, means this article does not seem to pass WP:BIO. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 12:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A news archive search would seem to show notability. RMHED (talk) 14:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:GOLF doesn't appear to have suggested notability guidelines, but in other sports, competing at for a national team in the highest levels international competition seems to qualify one as notable. I'd think captaining a Walker Cup team counts, as the search results linked above indicate. TheMolecularMan (talk) 16:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Walker Cup is the pinnacle of amateur golf, on a par with the Ryder Cup. The links indicate notability. Tassedethe (talk) 16:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Being a runner-up (or captain) in an amateur sport competition is a weak assertion, at best, to qualify for notability. But since the Walker Cup competition is notable enough to be on Wikipedia then I must digress and say Bob Lewis is, too - though not by much. -Jrcla2 ^(talk)^(contribs) 17:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Finalist in the U.S. Amateur is enough notability. I think this is especially strong in golf since there is a very strong amateur historical presence - so much so it was considered a major in 1930 when Bobby Jones won the grand slam. RonSigPi (talk) 23:17, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep The Walker Cup (older than the Ryder Cup), the U.S. Amateur, and the British Amateur are pretty much the pinnacle of amateur golf. Passes WP:ATHLETE quite easily. Any Walker Cup player should qualify, as they have "competed at the highest level in amateur sports". Lewis made four teams (and was a captain later). Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn - you've convinced me otherwise. Didn't realise how prestigious the competition was in the context. :) AllynJ (talk | contribs) 17:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 23:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sky 4

Apparent hoax or wishful thinking. No reliable sources found for this; no OfCom licence issued; only relevant Google hit is to a year-old thread on some forum with people the possibility of a launch (and dismissing it). ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ Yo Ho Ho And A Bottle Of Rum 12:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete then Redirect to Sky (band), as their fourth album is known as Sky 4 (although that article needs a thorough clean up which I'll get onto when I have a spare couple of hours!) The current article we have at Sky 4 uses references that refer to the launch of Sky3, which leads me to believe that the channel is a hoax. -- JediLofty ^{Talk to me}_{Follow me} 13:08, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 15:28, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Was going to get round to AfDing this myself when I had a spare moment. Sources are for Sky 3 not Sky 4 and I couldn't find any good sources for Sky 4. Strongly suspect it's a hoax. Dpmuk (talk) 15:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Hoax. Schuym1 (talk) 21:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ff m 00:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cap Sante Marina

Delete nn marina per WP:ORG and Wikipedia is not a directory Mayalld (talk) 14:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable per nom. Basement12 (T.C) 15:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 22:59, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BJ^Talk 00:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks notability. Dzhugashvili (talk) 14:38, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect. Fram (talk) 07:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cynder (character)

This character does not establish notability independent of the video game series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 22:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. TTN (talk) 22:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, maybe Smerge into Spyro the Dragon (series). More mere retellings of the plot in the games she appears in. Nifboy (talk) 23:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I object to the deletion of this article. It already contains a nice collected set of information on Cynder, the character.

Also, more information may be forthcoming that can be added to it once the third game in the spyro series is released and fans thereof have had their chance to contribute their own input.

At a minimum, I think we should wait until then to decide. If we delete it now, anyone who would want to recreate this article with noteworthy information later would have to go through the trouble of checking the history or writing it from scratch.

Shentino (talk) 18:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BJ^Talk 00:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Wikia - And, please do move it there before deleting. SharkD (talk) 00:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Spyro_the_Dragon_characters#Cynder <-- That article links here.

I strongly advise preservation of the article's content. Whether or not it is actually deleted or not, the content must be preserved. Before this article is deleted (which I still vote against), the content needs to be relocated.

Shentino (talk) 12:50, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List_of_Spyro_the_Dragon_characters#Cynder. Protonk (talk) 15:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Delete or) Redirect to List_of_Spyro_the_Dragon_characters#Cynder. Lack of evidence of WP:NOTABILITY, WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:OR... – sgeureka ^t•c 19:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect the information in the main article is sufficient. But no reason given for not keeping a redirect. DGG (talk) 00:48, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per DGG. This is more process forcing. JuJube (talk) 04:12, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. original research does not pay. Also lacks any sources per WP:V. MuZemike (talk) 16:54, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ff m 00:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dark 2step

unnecessary - a sub-subgenre, content should be merged with UK Garage or 2Step garage at very best. whilst referenced to a point, fails WP:N. article concerns a subgenre of garage, a descendent of drum and bass, which in turn is a derivative of jungle (this issue is widespread; garage is already a genre divisive enough to warrant two articles). Anyay in summation nothing is achieved by splintering the genre further. comments at Talk:Dubstep are also worth consideration --Kaini (talk) 02:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep:

Article is referenced from magazine sources.

1st reference is from "Pitchfork" magazine, british electronic music magazine. It states: "As the Velvet Room sessions took garage in a more concerted, darker direction, its mix of dark 2step ("nu dark swing"), breakbeat garage, and proto-grime (also then known as "8bar" or "east beat") was for a while collectively referred to as "The Forward>> sound.".

2nd reference: ".. in shaping the dark 2step sound that preceded dubstep", is translated review section of "Groove" magazine, german electronic music magazine.

3rd reference(pdf) (HTML version) is from "Kick" magazine, canadian electronic music magazine. It is stated there: "Dubstep dawned around the turn of the millennium out of Croydon, South London and was birthed from two similar genres, Grime and dark 2step."

4th reference is from "Spannered" website, site about audiovisual arts. The citation from that page is: "Fragmented styles of electronic dance music have often yielded exciting new sounds. In recent years, the advent of dubstep has occurred through mutations in dark ‘2-step’ garage, combined with influences from jungle and dub to create a new sound."

5th reference is from "Cyclic Defrost", australian electronic music magazine. It is about the sound of dark 2step: "...it was more just dark 2-step garage for a long time but without any vocals; just beats and bass lines"

Many musical genres have articles of its dark subgenres, for example Psychedelic trance-Dark psytrance. -- Yaneleksklus (talk) 02:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Despite the nominator's claims, this has sufficient sourcing; merging is the proper way to go if you believe that a sourced article is too specific. Nyttend (talk) 13:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment: my main concern here is that this article was created purely to leverage the introduction of the term into the infobox for Dubstep. i have grave doubts that the author intends to develop the article beyond the existing state, and i don't think anyone else will either. and the author hasn't developed the dubstep article (which is stable, and GA state) beyond the addition of the term to the infobox either. to paraphrase from the talk page for that article, why limit the infobox to "dark" garage? - a closed-minded attitude to genre only limits the article. i think that UK Garage and 2Step Garage cover the stylistic origins of this genre well, without the need for additional complications from subgenres.

anyway, some of that is by the by and moot as regards the AfD. although if anyone has any suggestions regarding where to discuss this, i'm all ears. --Kaini (talk) 22:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sufficiently sourced and hence notable, can't see the argument here I'm afraid. The author who was pushing to get "dark 2step" into the dubstep infobox was going the right way about it creating a sourced article to support his claim. I'd definitely consider merging with 2-step garage but not deleting the information. - filelake shoe 11:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Time's up. Stifle (talk) 09:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oddisee

While this artist has worked with notable people, I do not believe that this notability is inherited or transferable. Lacks non-trivial coverage by reliable third party publications and fails WP:MUSIC guidelines too. JBsupreme (talk) 05:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator for reasons outlined above. JBsupreme (talk) 05:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sources [28], [29]. Seems very borderline to me, leaning towards weak delete - but I'm not familiar enough with the US scene to judge the importance of the first source. Brilliantine (talk) 05:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 22:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BJ^Talk 00:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ff m 00:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pentarou

This character does not establish notability independent of the video game series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 22:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. TTN (talk) 22:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BJ^Talk 00:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep appears in so many different series that a separate article seems the best solution. Not overly devoted to plot, and servesto cordinat the different appearances. DGG (talk) 00:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG, this is an iconic character, there is no appropriate place to merge to, and overall this nomination is ill advised. JuJube (talk) 04:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No verifiable sources shown establishing any notability. There is also a bit of original research as well. MuZemike (talk) 16:46, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added a source. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I would normally close an AFD like this as merge or no consensus, but the article is completely bereft of sources which would be required in the merge target. Stifle (talk) 09:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Specter (Ape Escape)

This character does not establish notability independent of the video game series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 22:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. TTN (talk) 22:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge into Ape Escape (series). Again, purely a rehash of the plot. Nifboy (talk) 23:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BJ^Talk 00:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep or merge The information is needed somewhere. He is apparently the key character for the various games, and it might be clearer to keep it separate. There is however a main article that would do for the merge. I doubt all the plot detail is needed, but that's an editing question. No reason given to delete rather than mergeDGG (talk) 00:54, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Article contains mainly original research and unverifiable plot summaries (hence the {{inuniverse}} tag). MuZemike (talk) 16:48, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge non-redundant content to characters list. - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Plot summary and in-universe detail with no real-world information. Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject indicates that this topic is non-notable. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 06:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ff m 00:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hunter Smith (musician)

autobiography of a non notable musician. lacks significant coverage in outside reliable sources. Duffbeerforme (talk) 11:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Captain-tucker (talk) 13:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No claim to notability. Dzhugashvili (talk) 14:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Smith is as yet a nobody with nothing but a high school diploma and some plans. I wish him luck; until then, let's delete this article. Drmies (talk) 16:57, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted as an obvious hoax (CSD G3). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vroomtone

This article fails to establish that the term it discusses exists, let alone that it is notable. After I PRODed the article for this reason, the author erased my comments on the Talk page and then responded that he had updated the article to show that "vroomtones" exist, but it still doesn't and neither do his references. A Google search shows that the only use of the word is in a single reader comment on a blog page claiming their existence. I've restored my comments to the Talk page. Largo Plazo (talk) 11:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete hoax Duffbeerforme (talk) 12:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd love to, if it is one, except I have no way to prove it! (If it were demonstrably a hoax, what would the CSD reason be, vandalism?) —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, blatant or obvious haox is vandalism, tagged Duffbeerforme (talk) 12:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: the article was speedily deleted. —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Upon further review, the arguments presented by most of the Keeps were without merit, and they all seemed to have a COI. ff m 20:08, 24 September 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 no consensus. ff m 00:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Julie Umerle

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

I don't think this qualifies for speedy deletion, as there seems to be some claim to notability. However, those claims are not backed up by any reliable sources. This article does not fulfill notability per WP:CREATIVE. In a few years she may be notable, but at the moment is not freshacconci talktalk 11:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —freshacconci talktalk 11:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there's nothing here yet, and a link to a spreadsheet provides no verifiable ground for any kind of notability. Drmies (talk) 16:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
She has many pages referring to her on google and seems to be a well-regarded and established artist of note. I think she qualifies as 'notable' in terms of her track record. Her entry needs more work tho to establish 'notability'. Vaishal (talk) 16:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Falls a bit short of WP:CREATIVE. Work in a corporate collection and a couple of grants is a promising start to a career, but not notable enough for WP yet.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 17:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I disagree about that! CV is extensive. Vaishal (talk) 18:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to Vaishal: But where is that CV? An online gallery sells her work, and Deutsche Bank lists her as one of the (thousands) of artists that they hold work from. The article should establish its own relevance, and it doesn't--not verifiably so, anyway. Delete still. Drmies (talk) 18:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I think there may be sources. See the critical statements from others at [30] - -apparently had a solo exhibition with a published catalog.DGG (talk) 00:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Close, maybe with a few important museum collections and exhibitions...Modernist (talk) 05:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KEEPJulie Umerle is a notable artist, and I think that the article does just enough to establish this. Tshuku (talk) 06:05, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looking at my earlier version of this article, I can now see how much it has improved - so thank you all for your input. Content is verifiable. The artist is 'notable' if not yet famous! Vaishal (talk) 06:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:CREATIVE she is not represented within the permanent collections of any notable galleries or museums and there are hardly any secondary sources.

The two main contributing editors Vaishal and Tshuku are both SPA editors... COI?. Teapotgeorge^Talk 20:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I am a newcomer and did not mean to offend. Tshuku (talk) 23:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am an inclusionist...more diversity please! Partitas (talk) 17:28, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ethicoa... Not notable yet. Johnbod (talk) 18:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to Teapot : I think it is unfair to assume that I am a SPA editor. Vaishal (talk) 18:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Until today you had made 120 edits all of which were to the Julie Umerle article. Teapotgeorge^Talk 19:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Teapot : Yes, we were all agreed that it needed a lot of work. Thanks for your interest in my editing. I shall take your comments on board.Vaishal (talk) 19:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Comment to Teapot. What percentage of women are represented in major collections? The artist's work is obviously notable to have received so many awards. Diversity please!! Zubrowka (talk) 01:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC) — Zubrowka (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
a good point... Tshuku (talk) 03:21, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete all. fish&karate 10:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resurrection (The K.G.B. album)

As stated in the first line, this is an unreleased album, and asserts no reason why an unreleased album is worthy of an article. Nouse4aname (talk) 10:08, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, just noticed a whole load of other "unreleased albums" by this band that have articles. To have so many unreleased studio albums may be notable, and could be mentioned on the band article, but is there any need for separate articles on each, especially as reliable sources will be difficult to find to verify. Nouse4aname (talk) 10:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the lot for failing to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC#Albums. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 11:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all of em + Breakfast at Gordos redirect. even if they were released they'd still fail WP:MUSIC#Albums. the notability of The K.G.B. is also questionable. Duffbeerforme (talk) 12:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I also questioned the band's notability, however I think they just scrape through with the assertion "signed briefly with Dreamworks Records", though this is not verified. The article is in desperate need of a clean up though! Nouse4aname (talk) 12:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Yeah, that's a part of the reason I didn't immediatly nominate them too. Being signed to is not good enogh for WP:MUSIC. That may give coverage that passes on criterea 1 but that coverage is on their article yet. Depending how this afd goes I may nominate The K.G.B. as well. Duffbeerforme (talk) 12:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Captain-tucker (talk) 14:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted as blatant copyright infringement. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 15:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Netherlands Justice Ombudsman‎

Article is a copy right violation of nljo.org. Text appears to be simply copied here. That would be reason enough to delete it. Moreover the article reads like an advertisement and does not assert notability. C mon (talk) 10:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Copyvio, lack of sources, notability not established --Megaboz (talk) 15:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Animax Asia. Stifle (talk) 09:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Animax India

non-notable station/offshoot which fails to be verifiable due to lack of sourcing to reliable 3rd parties covering the subject in a significant manner. PROD and PROD2 tags removed without explaination. Additionally, much of the article is an exact duplicate of the other Animax articles Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:17, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with the Animax Asia article. E Wing (talk) 09:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is the part of Animax and also it is necessary to keep this,as also other channels like Cartoon Network pages for different countries----Sumit (talk) 09:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the notability, verifiability, and other policies I've pointed you to. You should also have a look at Other Stuff Exists as that isn't normally considered a valid reason to keep or to delete articles. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to support the merge solution. Perhaps even going so far as to sort out Animax Hungary at the same time per my note at the Animax Asia AfD. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:50, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Animax Korea can merge with Animax Asia because there is Animax Korea wiki Korean page but Animax India should not be merge with Animax Asia because Animax India (South Asia)'s programming differs from Animax Asia and the channels in East Asia, and is not a separate feed of Animax Asia, its broadcast by and is a sister channel of SONY TV India based in India. Animax Japan and Animax India while based in Asia are different from Animax Asia, Korea, Taiwan and Hong Kong, in programming, management and broadcasting and there are many more reasons in it----Sumit (talk) 13:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 15:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect -- Wikipedia is not an electronic program guide, and if this content is removed, a merge to Animax Asia is appropriate. G.A.S 16:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hidding

Non-notable neologism, no sources, probably unverifiable. Was prodded, prod removed by author without improvement. Huon (talk) 08:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as nonsense. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 09:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Already exists in Wiktionary as wikt:hiding. It's actually in much wider usage than merely in regions of New Zealand. Zetawoof_(ζ) 09:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not exactly nonsense, but exists in Wiktionary. Matt (Talk) 10:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If deleted, redirect to Concealment as a plausible misspelling/mistyping of "hiding". The aforementioned Wiktionary link to the correct spelling is also present at this target (although the difference between the meaning of hiding used here and in the target article may be a slight concern, but this could be solved with an appropriate dablink). -- saberwyn 11:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not certain if this is nonsense, but I am certain about WP:NEO. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a dictionary definition, not an encyclopaedia article, and is already on Wiktionary (correctly spelled). Beeswaxcandle (talk) 00:17, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - neologism without reliable sources. dramatic (talk) 00:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. dramatic (talk) 00:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. dramatic (talk) 00:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I had previously put a PROD template on this article, and agree completely with the nominator. Even if it could be verified, it is a definition only that apparently is already covered at Wiktionary. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:09, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hey wait, did I just see a snowflake? Beeblebrox (talk) 09:45, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 07:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to KDE#Identity. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Konqi

Non-notable mascot(s). VG ☎ 08:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Konqi is already covered in the page for KDE. This article is nothing but trivia. VG ☎ 08:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to KDE, not notably by itself unlike, say, Tux. Equendil Talk 08:38, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Synergy 00:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Wind Boy

Contested prod. Non-notable book, fails WP:BK. Admittedly, it was originally printed in 1923, so producing sources and references to pass the notability criteria would be hard - however, it was reprinted in 1996 and I haven't seen anything about the reprint that would pass WP:BK. No article about the author to redirect to. CultureDrone (talk) 07:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak delete~~. There doesn't seem to be much about this book out there other than trivial mention, plot summaries, and reader reviews. Equendil Talk 07:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. Not really changed my mind, I still don't think the book is notable, and shopping for just any mention of a given subject doesn't do it for me, but oh well, we're not wasting paper and at least it's not an advert for a book recently published, so I'll go with the flow. Equendil Talk 13:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Captain-tucker (talk) 14:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I just added references to Publishers Weekly and School Library Journal reviews to the article Captain-tucker. There is also a Booklist review here. (talk) 14:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The reprinting indicates a classic. The current reviews are just sufficient for notability, stronger keep if reviews of the original ed. can be found. DGG (talk) 01:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Looking at Google Books, the reviews do exist, e. g. Booklist Books 1924, 33 (but google won't let me see them). A book on Diane Arbus there says the book was a bestseller in the 30's. It's clearly her main success – it gets mentioned in reviews of her other books, e. g. The Horn Book Magazine 7, 1931, review of Gay Mystery, "To a lover of Mrs. Eliot's 'Buttercup Day' and her 'Wind Boy', that fairy tale written true beauty of" (and there the snippet ends, so I'll never know). N p holmes (talk) 10:24, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources added previously were enough to show notability, but I've added a couple more for good measure, and, as the previous editor said, this Google Books search shows that there are plenty more sources out there - it's just a pity that all but one of them allow no more than those tantalising snippets to be read. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:10, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy close - author blanked and userfied page. NAC. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Singam (film)

Apparently fails future film notability guidelines. No prejudice towards recreation when reliable sources exist to show that shooting has already begun. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 06:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Equendil Talk 07:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ff m 00:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Karim Said Atmani

Sub-stub accusing someone of being a terrorist. No real details, with very thin sourcing for such an explosive charge, not to mention somewhat confusing--he's described as 'A Canadian living illegally in Montreal', which, if he really is Canadian, is difficult to imagine how it would be illegal for him live in his own country. Standard article improvement tags have been meet with outright hostility and removal, but little real improvement or, indeed, evidence that this living individual either qualifies for an article or deserves such labelling. CalendarWatcher (talk) 06:28, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, Bad Faith Nomination, He's a convicted terrorist, and a quick google check confirms he meets notability guidelines, and I really don't know what your problem with the article is. As soon as the article was created, the nominator threw every single template on it he could find, including "This article is not linked", "This article needs attention from an expert in the field", "This article does not offer a worldwide perspective of the topic and focuses on a specific region's interpretation", "This article does not cite its souces" (even though it clearly does and did), "This article needs some attention to its lead paragraph" (...even though it's a stub?). I think I'll let a bot speak for my opinion of CalendarWatcher's "good faith" nomination. 12:56, September 18, 2008 JL-Bot (Talk | contribs) m (1,147 bytes) (removing orphan template as 99 article links exist). Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 06:38, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Every single tag applied--and, really, still applies--to the article, whatever minor dressing-up you've done. Your lead paragraph, in addition to dodging the issue of why the article exists in the first place, also contradicts itself: again, how can a Canadian be living 'illegally' in his own country? And as you've already been told--but have seen fit to dodge using the irrelevancy of the bot edit--its incoming links seem to solely come from the two ghastly over-sized navigation templates ({{CanadianTerrorism}} and {{FrenchTerrorism}}) which seem to list every single person of either nationality considered a 'terrorist' and deceptively inflate the count.

I'd suggest that knowing the latter and still making your inflated claim of regarding the number of links counts more objectively as 'bad faith' than your rather wild projections of motives you can't possibly know or derive. My problems with the article are exactly what I've said they are, your wild and fact-free accusations notwithstanding. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 14:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Google Books alone lists 9 published books that mention Atmani's role in the War on Terror, he's not even one of the "extremely minor brother of a guy who drove a bus" guys. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 07:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Mention' is not sufficient by any standard. You certainly haven't even claimed, let alone demonstrated, that he's NOT 'one of the "extremely minor brother of a guy who drove a bus" guys'. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 14:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this guy plainly is notable, and this isn't some POVpushing page. There's plainly plenty of sourcing (and as such isn't a BLP violation), it provides a sufficiently worldwide view (there's presumably just one Karim Said Atmani running around), and as noted, there are tons of links. Tags have been met with removal for good reason. Nyttend (talk) 13:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe the word 'plainly' means what you think it means. The sourcing--what little that I've been able to check--shows nothing really biographical, and the 'tons of links' are, as I've pointed out, at best, inflated. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 14:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - 100% of the sources are online, so there is no reason you can't check all of them if you so desire, but some are hosted on sites breaking copyright law by hosting them, so cannot be hotlinked in the references themselves...use google, you will find them. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 10:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article does need improvement (particularly the "Canadian living illegally in Montreal" bit certainly needs to be fixed), but the subject is notable and the sources cited in the article already demonstrate this. In addition to the books mentioned by Sherurcij, GoogleNews results also show significant coverage [31], over an extended period of time in newsmedia of several countries. Nsk92 (talk) 13:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmmm. Perhaps this is a keeper if Sherurcij can cite from any of those nine books--instead of referring to a Syrian news agency or from a summary of a report from Canadian security services. I find the lack of easily accessible documentation (as given in the references--I can't find those 'tons of links' in there) troubling. Drmies (talk) 17:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you must have missed the Washington Post, Seattle Times, Kohlmann's book and such in the references already. More references are possible, and surely over time the article will improve and take in all references; but a keep/delete vote is based on its potential, not whether it's currently a featured article. Also, Assyria is not Syria :P Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 18:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the WashPost story.-- Logical Premise^Ergo? 18:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing Commentary - one of the cites here names him as a document forger with a tenuous connection to a possible terrorist, but this book claims he was a "notable member of Al-qaida". This book seems to suggest that his link existed before the roommate even got into terrorism. And a Canadian legal finding pretty much only mentions him as someone for another person to avoid coming into contact with. After pulling one of these books in my local library, a careful examination of their sources reveals most of them are piles of very poorly referenced assertions, and I'm not sure they qualify as reliable sources. Also, no gnews hits, no a9, no good news coverage. I don't really know whether to keep or delete, but while there are sources of a secondary nature, they strike me as shaky at best. -- Logical Premise^Ergo? 18:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then again, the article does not make any assertions that aren't born out by the references. They are not deceptive. -- Logical Premise^Ergo? 18:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete borderline notability (document forger for a criminal org? wow!) & single event clearly applies.--Bsnowball (talk) 09:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:58, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ff m 00:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wokai

While the article and references demonstrate the notability of microfinance and the reality of poverty in rural China, the online references do NOT demonstrate in any way the notability (or even verify the activities) of the subject of the article. Specifically, the only ones that discuss the organization itself (at least, in English) are the organization's own pages. The other references (New York Times, etc.) do not mention Wokai at all. The main contributor's edits to Wikipedia seem to be very narrow, so there is no track record of identifying important but thinly referenced organizations that would lead to giving the benefit of the doubt. Bongomatic (talk) 06:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep hello, additional external references from authorities on poverty in rural china that directly reference wokai were omitted from the references list. There is some debate whether these should be included in the revised posting. A list of these references is now posted on the wokai talk page —Preceding unsigned comment added by KDguac (talk • contribs) 06:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KDguac, please see my comments to you on your talk page. For everyone else, I would simply note that those references do not reflect, even in aggregate, "significant coverage in reliable sources" as suggested in WP:GNG. Bongomatic (talk) 06:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I have to agree that the coverage in reliable secondary sources amounts to passing mentions at best. Thus Wokai fails the primary notability guideline. Huon (talk) 09:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question -- Wokai microloans are by definition very small ($50-$100) and most impactful to an audience in a remote part of the world (rural China). Because references cited are both domestic and foreign, the author asks if additional consideration of the following excerpt from WP:ORG is appropriate in weighing the magnitude of the media footprint: “The source's audience must also be considered; evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability, whereas attention solely by local media is not an indication of notability.” KDguac (talk) 17:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure what sources on an organization that invests American money in China to call "foreign". Anyway, I don't think I've seen a source mention Wokai that's not intimately linked to Chinese-American charities and non-profit organizations, making for a similarly specialized audience. Huon (talk) 19:28, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If proper sources cannot be found, but I would caution the nominator to restrict his nomination comments to the article itself and not the person who wrote it. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:Notability & maybe even WP:ADVERT. TheAsianGURU (talk) 16:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:58, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:58, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dullmont Jr. High School

More Nickcruft from Wikialexdx, this time about the classroom set for sketches in All That, which apparently has a name of a school. This is non-notable, original research, and has absolutely no sources to be found. Nate • (chatter) 05:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Barely notable within the series, much less outside of it. No sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 05:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non encyclopedic fancruft. Equendil Talk 07:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If this were an actual real school perhaps it would have a chance. Its not, and it doesn't. JBsupreme (talk) 08:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete junk. JuJube (talk) 09:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per above. Dzhugashvili (talk) 14:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 15:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete please, ASAP. Someone give this user some homework or a different hobby. Drmies (talk) 17:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

rather explain to the user how to being contributing here as suggested in WP:FIRST. DGG (talk) 17:35, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I never thought this would need a seperate article, I just moved it to saying what the title is, with the Jr. in it. Delet the article.--Wikialexdx (talk) 20:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. ff m 00:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Hardy (Australia)

unverified text about a non-notable person Drmies (talk) 04:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 06:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Her 15 minutes of fame have passed. WWGB (talk) 07:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing indicating notability here. Appearing in a TV show hardly qualifies. Equendil Talk 08:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The show is mindless crap. Big brother "celebritys" are mostly more than forgettable. Unfortunatley Hardy and ~~"tarty"~~ Marty captured the publics attention. They even had a television series made of their marriage. They had tonnes of publicity that unfortunatly extended their 15 minutes way too far. crud should be forgotten but coverage is coverage. Duffbeerforme (talk) 13:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- [32] Duffbeerforme (talk) 13:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable. Dzhugashvili (talk) 14:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- non-notable. - Longhair\^talk 08:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a twice-failed game show contestant, related to someone who died, and announcer on regional radio. The only siginifant secondary coverage I could find for "Jessica Hardy" related to the other Jessica Hardy. Not seeing notability here. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wasn't just Big Brother; also had her own TV show (Marty & Jess: An Outback Wedding). Rebecca (talk) 11:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am not a fan of Big Brother, and normally I would say delete to the passing incidental fame that most Big Brother contestants achieve, but it seems this person has passed the Notability test in verifiable secondary references - Google news search brought up over 40 hits.--Takver (talk) 12:27, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because this needs to redirect somewhere. Deletion is not a suitable outcome, however unnotable the subject of the article might be. Rebecca raises a good point, even if the second show was a spin-off. JRG (talk) 14:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Shortland Street. MBisanz ^talk 03:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mona McKay

Fictional biography of a character introduced only 2 days ago (hence NO indication of significance or longevity is possible) with no real-world context or refrences. dramatic (talk) 04:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. dramatic (talk) 04:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails Google Test. TallNapoleon (talk) 05:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Shortland Street. Equendil Talk 08:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Shortland Street. The main article already has a lack of sources; there's no need to create unsourced breakaway articles violating WP:PLOT. Huon (talk) 09:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Shortland Street. Not enough information available to create a thorough article, isn't a main character and is probably going to leave shortly after this plot finishes. Matt (Talk) 10:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (to the above 3 contributions) I don't see the point in creating a redirect for every new character as they are introduced (several dozen a year) - the main article (if written in an encyclopedic manner, which Shortland Street most definitely is not) will not mention the names of newly introduced characters. dramatic (talk) 10:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 15:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 15:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for now; can be expanded if becomes more significant. No reason why a redirect is inappropriate, so it could have been done without coming here. DGG (talk) 01:04, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Xavier ruffin

No reliable sources. Also COI, as article was duplicated in author's userspace. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 03:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seems to me that the editor is writing about himself, but I'm not sure. JonCatalán^(Talk) 03:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering that myself but it's also possible he doesn't know about subpages and is using his userpage for the draft. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is made clear by his many accolades that Xavier Ruffin is a noteworthy person. If not for his art work, at least for his inspirational story—a young homeless boy, the son of two drug addicts becomes a successful artist and designer with shows at the Smithsonian in Washington D.C.—

There is also the ORI movement that he is pushing forward with a small collective of people. The concept of "art work emitting from the original source with in" through digital media, which has yet to be elaborated on in the article.

and yes, I am or better was ignorent of sub pages and used my user page as a draft. As instucted by wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by X2541 (talk • contribs) 03:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest you read WP:BIO first. Just having a hard childhood doesn't make you notable. I've found no evidence that he's had shows at the Smithsonian, and even that isn't a very strong claim of notability. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 05:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If this is kept it needs to be rewritten so that it does not read like a vanity page. And Ruffin should be capitalized unless it is the artist's preference to leave it lower case. TallNapoleon (talk) 05:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unverifiable autobio, minor awards, fails WP:BIO. Inspirational background is not amongst criteria for inclusion, I wish the subject of the article to grow notable, *then* be featured on Wikipedia. Equendil Talk 08:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. fails NOTABIITY. Kittybrewster ☎ 08:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the subject simply fails the requirements for inclusion which are covered at WP:N and WP:V Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: obvious conflict of interest. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 09:08, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be a pain or make myself even more unpopular but WP:COI isn't a valid reason for deletion as I understand things. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of notability and coverage in secondary sources. Huon (talk) 09:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment without spending time to review the article. The AFD template in the article didn't link to this discussion, so I fixed it. Some time should pass to allow everyone to access this discussion from the article. Royal broil 14:24, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete College undergraduate, not notable yet. Johnbod (talk) 18:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Snow, NFTphobia. TravellingCari 22:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allotriphobia

This neologism (acknowledged as such in the article's talk page) is not a word. It doesn't exist in the OED and there are no hits on the word in Google. Even if it were a word, it would not be notable. Bongomatic (talk) 03:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Made up term. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 03:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Pegasus «C¦T» 03:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per TPH and his otters. Completely fails Google Test. TallNapoleon (talk) 05:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BOLLOCKS--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 08:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Equendil Talk 08:17, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: probably a made-up word. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 09:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of sources. It technically doesn't satisfy the speedy deletion criteria, though. Huon (talk) 09:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. The word xenophobia would cover this pretty well. As with the word "gullible", you can check all the dictionaries in the house and not find this one. Mandsford (talk) 16:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, seems true and notable, let's be a bit more inclusionistCdC—Chuleta de Chancho (talk) 20:50, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

erm, how?? TallNapoleon (talk) 21:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of references. See also WP:NFT. Stifle (talk) 21:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this made-up term. Cliff smith ^talk 21:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Angry left

Declined the speedy, as it is clearly not nonsense. But is it notable? Quote in NYTimes argues for notability. Seeking consensus. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 03:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. The fact that two words were strung together by George W Bush may be notable, but the words themselves aren't. This is not a phrase that has any consistent repeated usage, or whose meaning there is a consensus. Having an entry for this is like having an entry for "yellow paint". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bongomatic (talk • contribs) 03:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Bush seemed to just be saying that the "left" was "angry" at McCain. Northwestgnome (talk) 03:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep common polysci termCdC—Chuleta de Chancho (talk) 03:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is your evidence / reference for this proposition? Bongomatic (talk) 04:08, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is nothing here of note, and besides, it's pretty poorly written. Wikipedia can't turn every turn of phrase into an article. Drmies (talk) 04:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bongomatic, just a combination of words. Equendil Talk 08:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it is a two word neologism which isn't what wikipedia is for. Even if it is a "common polysci term" it doesn't automatically make it notable enough for its own article. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete politicscruft. JuJube (talk) 09:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable neologism. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 09:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Everybody in politics is angry; comes with the territory. Mad, too, but that's a different issue entirely. Not exactly a neologism; closer to a tautology. The article says nothing you could not have figured out just by seeing the noun phrase. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Politics does tend to lead to anger, in some people. Google gives us: “angry left” 150,000, “angry right” 134,000, “angry center” 6,490, “angry democrat” 9,310, “angry republican” 28,500, “angry communist” 1,800, and “angry libertarian” 1,210. Steve Dufour (talk) 19:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, neologism. Stifle (talk) 21:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a plausible search term for a certain perception, namely that a large section of the American left-wing are angry, which I'm sure is notable (i.e. a lot of articles are written about it). Is there a similar article we could redirect this one to? the skomorokh 14:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, with reasoning along the lines of the "yellow paint" comment above. --Lockley (talk) 02:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Synergy 00:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thurtene Carnival

No reliable sources found. {{Db-bio}} removed as carnivals are not people. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 03:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The one secondary source seemed reliable enough. It was a local alternative newspaper. The carnival's own website was also cited. Northwestgnome (talk) 03:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So one secondary source and a primary source. Do you really think that's enough? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 03:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't have written an article with just two sources. However, the information in the article seems to be true. I don't see any reason to delete the article. Someone might want to look up information on the carnival. Northwestgnome (talk) 03:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which is exactly what I did. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters •

^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 04:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More information can be found here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Kpa3pSOOUc

Keep I have added more secondary sources about the carnival —Preceding unsigned comment added by DMYK (talk • contribs) 23:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it is a sui genersis, since it is the largest student run carnival.CdC—Chuleta de Chancho (talk) 03:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Thurtene Honorary, which isn't exactly overflowing. Stifle (talk) 21:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both articles are needed as they are somewhat separate entities. Although nothing has been written on the topic yet, The Honorary has many aspects which are not the carnival, and vise versa

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: plenty of significant coverage referenced in the current article, plenty more on Google News. Oppose merge as there is more than enough in the reference for a decent-length non-stub article. the skomorokh 14:21, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's stubby but that's not a reason to delete. Notability is asserted and references seem to support what is written so far. -- Banjeboi 19:21, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. — Coren ^(talk) 03:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Camberford Law

Fails Notability requirements. Contains almost no inbound links. - Superflewis (talk) 16:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per my nomination --Superflewis (talk) 16:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~I also agree with the deletion in this case as I could not find any sources on Google News or Google Books. --Elisabeth Rogan (talk) 17:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)~~ Note - account since indefblocked. Black Kite 22:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elisabeth Rogan indef'ed. See WP:AN#Right to vanish and not vanished. seicer | talk | contribs 00:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The above sock missed these 78 returns in Google News? 50 year old Lloyd's listed broker - almost certainly notable. Black Kite 20:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KeepAs I understand the significance: According to Lloyd's of London#Structure, a Lloyd's agent is the firm a purchaser of insurance deals with to obtain a policy at Lloyd's. there are, from our article, 164 of them. Are all of them notable? I do not know, but it is probable from the G News results that this is a leading firm among them, though I would like some quantitative data about turnover and market share. (This, even though about 9/10 of the hits are to press releases, which abound in G news -- Europe Intelligence Wire is a RS only to in the sense that it reprints them reliably, just like its US counterparts. Many of the others are simply interviews with the principals of the firm, reliably sources for whatever they choose to say. By precedent, they are usable for uncontroversial facts, but should not be confused with independent RSs--we use them because there is often no easily available better source for company information.) DGG (talk) 02:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. TravellingCari 20:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Julie MacDonald

This person is only notable for one thing. The article is also a coatrack to talk about Bush's science and environmental policies. The whole thing also seems like an attack on an individual, in violation of WP policies. Northwestgnome (talk) 02:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Massive coverage - this is not a crime victim, she is notable for her actions. Coverage seems referenced and ok in BLP terms. Most of the criticism cited is from other government officials, including the court judgement. I see no broader discussion of Bush administration policies. Johnbod (talk) 03:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Criminals, as well as victims, are not usually given WP bios. Northwestgnome (talk) 03:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Julie MacDonald is notable for her previous work and the federal investigation that found her responsible for wrongdoing. She is a former high-level Department of the Interior official. Even though she stepped down over a year ago, she is still in the news because of her work with the DOI. The article is well-sourced, reliably, and is about MacDonald's tenure at the DOI, not Bush's environmental policies, as Northwestgnome would imply. Additionally, all kinds of Criminals have WP bios.Athene cunicularia (talk) 04:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Material is well-cited from reliable sources that are specific and in-depth about her. The news reports span several years, so she (or at least her actions and their results) are not only "15 minutes of fame", but continue to have an effect. Note: I declined a {{db-attack}} on this page (see Talk:Julie MacDonald for a brief comment by nom and my response). The article could use some work: a bit more bio, what (if anything of note) she accomplished before the controversial activities or since then. As it stands, it does feel at first glance to be very negative, but WP is a teriary source--the solution is to add other material to avoid WP:UNDUE if that's the concern, not to delete what we have. I spot-checked the things that look (again, at first glance) to be COATRACK, and their cited sources actually do specifically mention her and her actions. So it passes WP:V and is on-topic, and actually helps support her having substantial and lasting notability. DMacks (talk) 04:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No reason to delete, highly notable. Neutrality^talk 05:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Recommend nominator familiarize themselves with XfD criteria. Viriditas (talk) 06:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- as per Athene cunicularia's comments on article talk page. AnonMoos (talk) 08:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Significant coverage in mainstream media. The article is focusing solely on the controversy, but that's not a reason to delete. Nominator can edit it to add other bio details. VG ☎ 09:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If she was a notable person the other bio details would already be there. :-) Northwestgnome (talk) 11:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Significant coverage of a notable government official. Gamaliel (talk) 12:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets notability requirements just fine. Everyting is very clearly sourced and I've checked some of the sources, they aren't misleading, everyone SPECIFICALLY mentioning her and her actions and if anything the article is taking it easy. Plus, it's still all over the news. Might as well SNOW this one, I don't see a single actual valid deletion criteria, and frankly I must say that I hope the nominator is fairly new to WP, otherwise I'm going to have my doubts about why you'd nominate an article like this for deletion without even checking it on the BLP noticeboard if that was your concern. -- Logical Premise^Ergo? 17:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable coverage in media of the story, article well-referenced, no POV, UNDUE, or BLP issues. Agree with LogicalPremise above: speedy keep. Arjuna (talk) 19:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Why the heck was this relisted? Nobody called for a delete, really, and the nom withdrew. NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 02:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sophia Jansson-Zambra

Speedy for "not notable" got declined, although both editors agreed it was a borderline case. Suggestion was to take it here, so here it is.
Delete - My reasoning: I don't think WP:BIO is met at all. Sophia Jansson's father and uncle are fairly notable, and indeed most of the article and refs are actually about them. Sophia gets two sentences. Basically she appears to be just another office manager, working in her father's company. I don't see how that makes her notable. With all due respect, of course. ~~SIS~~ 22:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to keep. The current version[33] is a huge improvement compared to the one I tagged for deletion[34] four days ago. I think notability is now shown and well sourced. I suggest to close this discussion and keep the article. ~~SIS~~ 22:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Her father and aunt are both dead leaving her as the "heir" to the popular Moomin merchandising created by her aunt. She has contributed work with her father (prior to his death) to oversight of some of the most recent projects related to this series and she now provides the sole oversight for several projects related to the series. As a member of the Jansson line, she is afforded a legitimacy in her projects which is lacking for others (like the Augsburger Puppenkiste group, Masaaki Osumi, Rintaro, and a number of other typically Japanese "office managers") who have created "non-canon" products. In this way she can be compared to Roger S. Baum, the grandson of the creator of the Wizard of Oz. -Thibbs (talk) 13:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC) (article creator) Thibbs (talk) 14:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)(sl. clarif.)[reply]

Note - It is quite inaccurate to suggest that only 2 of the 10 sentences in the stub discuss Jansson-Zambra. In point of actual fact, Jansson-Zambra is explicitly discussed in 7 of the 10 sentences and is implicitly referenced in 1 more. Only 2 sentences are given her aunt and 3 sentences discuss her father. Both her father and aunt are only discussed in connection to their relation to Jansson-Zambra. -Thibbs (talk) 13:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC) Thibbs (talk) 14:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)(sl. clarif.)[reply]

I still don't see how that satisfies WP:BIO (or WP:NOTINHERITED), sorry. She's mentioned in the Moomin article already, and I'd say that's sufficient. All my searches turn up not much more than that she's a manager at Moomin. ~~SIS~~ 12:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, it appears that you are unfamiliar with the series in question here. Evidence points to the fact that your review of the stub was little more than a cursory formality and that this is simply part of the well-intentioned but poorly executed campaign of a self-proclaimed deletionista. I agree that deletionism is a valid viewpoint and that there are certain concrete benefits deletionists (and deletionistas) provide to wiki as a project, but in maintaining a position of deletion based solely on personal first impressions and sticking to it in particular instances contrary to the views of one's peers (see [35] and [36]) strikes me as taking things too personally. Wikipedia is a community and one's pride is never at stake. Sticking strictly to the matter at hand, it is helpful here to review the repeatedly referenced WP:BIO.

According to WP:BIO:

Basic criteria - Y - There is a presumption of notability in cases where "[the person in question] has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." Here Jansson-Zambra is the subject of a number of reliable independent sources (I believe this is the reason the speedy-delete was twice refuted).
Additional criteria - YYYYY - "A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included."
"The person has received a notable award or honor" - Y - Here Jansson-Zambra has been asked to speak at numerous events including invitations from the Finnish consulate in Washington. There is at least an argument that this is something of an honor.

"The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field" - Y - Here Jansson-Zambra provides supervision and oversight for the comics made after the Moomin series and maintains artistic control over the output related to the greater Moomin series (including print, film, and graphic media). She is widely cited in relation to the product line (See below).

"The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors." - Y - I already have provided 6 reputable cites. See the following additional examples: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6). Although arguably not a peer, her aunt also gives her mention in her novel, Rent Spel, and she is the hero of the book Sommarboken by implicit reference. As discussed in the rationale for invalidation of the proposed speedy-delete, the high caliber of many of these citations is above question.

"The person has played a major role in co-creating, a collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" - Y - As artistic director in charge of oversight she contributes to the development of the greater Moomin series. This series is widely popular in many (33+) countries (See ref). An incomplete list of scholarly works on the series can be found at the fi.wikipedia article.

"The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention." - Y - (a) Jansson-Zambra's work relates to the Moomin series and as the main author of the series has died Jansson-Zambra's work may be considered either peri- or deutero- rather than proto-canonical. This is significantly monumental in nature. (b) She has taken part in the 31st "Dreams & Visions" Annual Children's Literature Conference and will take part in Helsinki Design Week 2008 in a week or so. She has also been a major part of at least one documentary on her aunt ([37]). (c) evidence of critical attention may be found throughout the sources on the page and those provided here.

To address your concerns that your personal research has not yielded any substantial results, please note that (1) her maiden name, "Sophia Jansson," is more commonly used, and (2) the last name is spelled with one "n" and two "s"'s. (Note: I say this not to be patronizing but because this is a common misspelling for non-Scandinavian people). My personal research yields some 1,270 Google hits.

-Thibbs (talk) 17:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

←You seem to assume I'm trying to delete for the sake of it. I'm not. I brought this here out of genuine concern. Since you feel the need to throw WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:EGO at me, can I just say WP:AGF in return? As far as your link to my page goes, would you mind linking to the current version and not to a version that was already outdated (by 14 revisions) when you wrote your reply? I'm sure the older one suits you better, but unfortunately it only tells half the story. The same goes for the links to "my peers". They both suggested taking it here. They did. If you quote, quote properly and fairly, please. Thanks. Back to the article: if you have 3rd party sources or other texts that asses her notability and that are not in the article, I strongly suggest you add them to it. That would help a lot. ~~SIS~~ 21:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In good faith I believe that you've spotted a short stub and have made the hasty decision that it should be deleted as some form of WP:SPAM. I applaud your efforts to keep advertisements off Wikipedia. As I said before, deletionism as a policy has a place in maintaining good order (if not essential to maintain the respectability of the whole project). That said, it is patently clear that your review of the stub and the issues surrounding it was done in a sloppy manner and I submit that the intention of removing the article as fast as possible is apparent among other things from your repeated speedy delete nominations. To give the briefest possible of dirty laundry lists by way of explaining myself:

You stated that "Sophia Jansson's father and uncle are fairly notable, and ... most of the article and refs are actually about them." In fact Jansson-Zambra's uncle was never mentioned in the stub although her aunt was. This is clear from the language of the stub.
You stated that "Sophia gets two sentences." In fact (as I previously suggested) Jansson-Zambra is discussed in 7 of the 10 sentences and implicitly referenced in 1 more. The remaining 2 sentences lead directly and significantly to further discussion of Jansson-Zambra.
You stated that "she's a manager at Moomin." In fact Moomin is the name of the series (or character to be most precise) and not the name of the various companies she provides oversight for or the permission for whose artistic creations she has granted.

I realize you might not have much time to evaluate in detail each of the many stubs you delete, but surely you would agree that it is a tactical mistake to allow the creator of the article such a clear insight into your haste. Anyway I'm glad you're not simply trying to delete the article for the sake of it. I must admit some confusion as to your continued interest in it post nomination but if I've assumed bad faith then I apologize. For all I know your concerted efforts may simply be designed to highlight the need for expansion of the stub or to gain consensus for its existence that may be referenced in later matters. Whatever the case, as far as I can see so far there have been no objections to the stub except from you whereas two peers (I'm not sure why you would have placed quotes around them... they are peers are they not?) have been instrumental in blocking deletion, I have found an editor who appears to give implicit approval of the article (Note: I have moved this to the bottom and outdented it again as a pseudo-3rd party view), and of course I am in favor of keeping it. The AfD has been placed on the Business, Finland, and Comic AfD lists and has thus far escaped any calls for deletion. It might be worth considering placing it on the Sweden AfD list as well since the relevant series is Swedish-Finnish and may in fact be more popular in Sweden. I recognize that both peer editors who blocked the speedy delete also suggested AfD but considering their attention was only drawn to the article as a result of your speedy delete nomination I'd say the presumption of deletability was pretty strongly in your favor at the time and their blocking a speedy delete speaks louder than their suggestion of a compromise AfD.

Finally, as far as your suggestion that I have selectively misconstrued your userpage, I can assure you that you've completely missed my point. The diff I provided as a link to your page contained the line to which I had referred just prior. Specifically the diff I linked was the edit in which you added the line that currently adorns your current userpage: "The trophies of a deletionista. (Hey, other people put moose heads on their walls.)" I may have offended you by suggesting that ego shouldn't play a part in AfDs, but your accusations that I had violated WP:AGF coupled with your lack of good faith concerning my references to your page and your suggestions that an older version suited my purposes better seem to constitute a POINT edit.

To answer your topical complaints that 3rd party references should be added I will gladly comply. As it stands the 10 sentences that make up the stub are already referenced by 7 strong 3rd party citations (one is used twice for a total of 8 citations), but if it will support the validity of the article in your eyes then I will add them all. There is, in fact, more substantive information to be added as well and I will try to add all of this tomorrow. The reason I had held back was to allow an un-tampered-with version for public scrutiny but you are correct that my case could only be enhanced by greater citation and a filling-out of the body of the stub. I will address this as soon as I can and hopefully I can convince you of the merits of the article. -Thibbs (talk) 23:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your continious comments about my other WP contributions and my userpage are becoming a little tiresome, to be honest. I fail to see how they contribute to establishing Jansson's notability. Don't shoot the messenger and let's stick to the subject, please. If you want to discuss my work, please do so on my Talk page. Thanks. ~~SIS~~ 10:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming good faith and I hope you are as well. Consider it from my perspective: The whole thing seemed to come on much more strongly than I am used to considering the stub had only been up for a few days, was reliably cited, and appeared to have been gone over hastily with a pre-conclusion of "delete." I think we can both clearly see where we're coming from now and I agree to return strictly to the subject. -Thibbs (talk) 12:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another minor point, I think it is safe to say that there is an implicit keep from this editor who had originally redlinked "Sophia Jansson" (the maiden name) in this edit. It should be noted that this editor has a clean log. -Thibbs (talk) 17:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I respect your arguments, but now you're stretching it a bit. A red link is an implicit keep? Let's wait until that IP comes here and gives an opinion, shall we? ~~SIS~~ 10:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's that much of a stretch. What does it mean to you when a person redlinks? To me it means that either they expect there to be an article on the topic (implying a meeting of WP:NOTABILITY requirements) or that they wish there to be an article on the topic (implying a sense of notability). -Thibbs (talk) 12:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- fails WP:BIO, as per nominator. Change to Weak keep. None of the sources used in the article treat her as the main subject; she is only mentioned in passing. Also: the article itself reads like a self-promotional CV, with several typical (unsourced) phrases often found in such documents, such as "provided direct oversight together with her father for the 1990 Moomin animated series", "became an active help in management", "represented Finnish children's literature during an engaging lecture and presentation".) Afv2006 (talk) 08:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Asked user to reconsider. -Thibbs (talk) 20:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I still feel that her notability is extremely marginal and that info on her would be more appropriate as a section included in the article about the trademark or about her better-known relatives, but in light of the effort extended to establish notability, I'll withdraw my "delete" - in anticipation of better sourcing. Hopefully, she has at least one article where she is the subject, not mentioned solely as "the niece" in an article about her aunt? Also: Blogs and message boards (such as the Yahoo groups) have no place among the references - the many substandard sources now inserted (including a comic shop advertisement and posts/blog entries from http://rubycafe.s32.xrea.com/blog/cat21/ , http://groups.yahoo.com/group/moominvalley/message/1556 , http://katewombat.blogspot.com/2007_02_01_archive.html) look really desperate and urgently need to be replaced with reliable sources appropriate for use in biographies of living persons). But the article has more substance and since a few of the sources used indicate that she will be/has been represented at different Scandinavian events, it can't be ruled out that she might soon be well-known enough that people might actually want to search WP for info on her. Afv2006 (talk) 23:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coren ^(talk) 02:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Eeth Koth

Unremarkable Jedi from Episode II. I don't believe he had even a single line NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 02:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Besides that he is only notable for one thing, his own death. Northwestgnome (talk) 03:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Eeth Koth was an article that died on Wikipedia. Delete JuJube (talk) 09:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: his death doesn't make him notable. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 09:17, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this one line article which fails WP:NOTE, WP:SOURCES and consists of WP:OR. -- JediLofty ^{Talk to me}_{Follow me} 13:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: this is the article content: "Eeth Koth was a jedi who Died in Attack of the Clones". Fails WP:GNG for starters. Cliff smith ^talk 22:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree that characters mentioned but without an individual role in anything do not justify even a redirect. DGG (talk) 01:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Should have been speedy deleted. --EEMIV (talk) 17:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete R.I.P --SkyWalker (talk) 17:48, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Never mind, eastmain bailed me out again. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:28, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brighton Mall

AfDs for this article:

I AfD'ed this back in '07 because I couldn't find any sources. The page was later recreated in a nonsensical form, which I rewrote after a hastily withdrawn second afd. At the time, I found only one major source (a now-deleted news article that gave a lot of info on the mall). That source was strong enough for me to give this the benefit of the doubt at first. Well, now, there's no substantial coverage to be found anywhere, so I say it's time to delete it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 02:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found a mirror of the Lansing State Journal article at Archive.org and added it as a reference. See http://web.archive.org/web/20040813174541/http://www.lsj.com/news/local/040717_brighton_mall_3b.html A print-only reference is a perfectly valid one. If a reference is no longer available online, just delete the URL. --Eastmain (talk) 02:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still, that's the only substantial source. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 03:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added some more coverage from the Detroit News. And perhaps there is further coverage in reliable sources that are not available online. --Eastmain (talk) 04:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per articles added by Eastmain. the Detroit News and Lansing State Journal articles are beyond the scope of "trivial" and are reliable sources. And Ten Pound Hammer, just because a url of a substantial source is no longer working doesn't mean that source doesn't exist any more. Print sources are just as valid. --Oakshade (talk) 06:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Tallahassee, Florida#Middle schools. Very little to merge, but the content is under the redirect if anyone wants to integrate it. Stifle (talk) 09:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Montford Middle School

Non-notable middle school, per WP:SCHOOL. No references to establish notability in any other criteria. justinfr (talk/contribs) 02:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A Google search shows only that the school exists and seems to have first opened in July, so there's no evidence of notability. As a note, WP:SCHOOL is a failed guideline, and probably shouldn't be referenced as it was never endorsed by a consensus. Nick Dowling (talk) 07:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, WP:OUTCOMES#Education probably would have been better, even if it's precedents not policy. justinfr (talk/contribs) 11:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The usual outcome in articles about middle schools and elementary schools (if the subjects aren't shown to be notable for something other than being a school) is that they are merged to an article about the school district. In this case, I note that there is not an article for Leon County Public Schools, which is the district that Montford is in. Since the school district is a governmental unit, it isn't subject to deletion, and editors can contribute school information to the school system article. Mandsford (talk) 16:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Tallahassee, Florida#Middle schools per accepted practice. Target can be moved to the school district when created. TerriersFan (talk) 01:17, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 23:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Danse

Does not show notability. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 02:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree--a poster child for non-notability. Drmies (talk) 04:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable song and the lyrics are probably a WP:COPYVIO. VG ☎ 10:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete as hoax. NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 03:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

J.R

possible hoax, no Google hits, chart positions are fake Caldorwards4 (talk) 02:17, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Hoax. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 02:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. — Coren ^(talk) 02:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Magica (band)

Appears to fail WP:BAND. SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Their Allmusic guide entry sounds pretty notable to me, including a remark about their "choice radio airplay and earned a warm reception in the press". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: Seems notable enough from the entry. Dayewalker (talk) 19:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, justinfr (talk/contribs) 02:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. fish&karate 10:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History of Iranian Football Club In Asian Tournaments

Article listing the results of Iranian football clubs playing in continental tournaments. IMO this falls under Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, as I can't really see that much point to it. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 20:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 20:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. – PeeJay 20:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Really? Please explain how this is indiscriminate - it is organised by tournament and year. TerriersFan (talk) 22:12, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I do not believe that detailing the performances of a certain country's clubs in Asian competitions is that beneficial. We don't even have this sort of article for European countries. Then you get countries like Israel, Kazakhstan and Australia, who have changed confederations. How do we deal with those? Then there's the question of how much is too much. Should this article be split into History of Iranian football clubs in the AFC Champions League, History of Iranian football clubs in the AFC Cup, etc.? And then there's the point that the article's title doesn't even use good grammar. Perhaps my endorsement of the WP:INDISCRIMINATE reason was incorrect, but the reasons I have provided above surely aren't. – Pee Jay 14:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - nothing indiscriminate about this - it is discriminate, organised and encyclopaedic. TerriersFan (talk) 21:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this list of football tournament results seems to be a little too specific for inclusion in Wikipedia, per WP:SALAT and WP:NOTDIR. Also, notable tournament results seem to already be covered fairly comprehensively on the Iran national football team page. --ColorOfSuffering (talk) 08:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - This list is of results achieved by Iranian clubs, and has nothing whatsoever to do with the Iran national football team...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Ah...sorry. Tripped up by the missing plural noun. All the same, I still don't see the benefit of a single country's multiple clubs' performances in a single continent's multiple tournaments. If someone is interested in the results of a club, why not go to the specific club's page? --ColorOfSuffering (talk) 05:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 17:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into relevant tournament articles, then delete. The information has a place on wikipedia, but not as an indiscriminate list. Everything here belongs either on the club articles or tournament articles. I suggest making the article available to significant contributor(s) after deletion to speed this process up. BeL1EveR (talk) 04:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this article as same as Iraqi clubs at the AFC Champions League , Thai clubs at the AFC Champions League and Thai Clubs in Asian Club Championship.Shahin (talk) 09:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS may be a valid argument for inclusion. You really need to read the complete guideline. Blanket application of the guideline as you have done just isn't consistent with what the guideline really says. In a deletion debate, both the Keepers and Deleters need to explain carefully how The Other Stuff clearly relates or clearly doesn't relate to the article under question.--Mike Cline (talk) 10:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This article is really helpfull and it's also organised. There shouldn't even be the talk about deleting this article. It should be kept because it is helpfull. Sohrab 0611 (talk) 18:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How on earth is it helpful? All the results are covered in other articles on the various Asian competitions. пﮟოьεԻ 57 19:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Because it provides a collated overview without the reader having to trawl through several other pages and extract the information themselves. TerriersFan (talk) 20:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Like the contributor above, I really can't see why a collation of a single country's clubs' results is necessary. пﮟოьεԻ 57 22:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I understand. You are English. it may not be so Important to have an article for a Country like England, because every season at least 4 English clubs participate in Champions League and usually play strongly and win the cup. but its different for Iranian clubs, Iranian clubs have won Asian titles only 4 times.Amirreza (talk) 12:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Also, I've just noticed that this is a canvassed vote. пﮟოьεԻ 57 22:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I've described bellow about what you think is canvassed vote. Amirreza (talk) 12:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Including information like this in the club page instead of a page like Iranian football club in asian tournaments will make the already packed Iranian club pages larger and less comprehensible. Nokhodi (talk) 01:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Canvassed vote. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 07:17, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 01:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to me to be a reasonably discriminate list, so doesn't fail WP:IINFO. Nominator has given no examples of how this list is indiscriminate. RMHED (talk) 02:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is indiscriminate because there is no explanation as to why we need a separate list of results just for clubs from one country when they are all available on the existing articles on the cups. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 07:17, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I believe the relevant part of WP:INDISCRIMINATE that Number 57 is referring to here is "Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles. In addition, articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader." That certainly describes this page. If we were to produce a page called History of English football clubs in European Tournaments, it'd probably take all day to read it! As the page in question stands, it really is far too long and specific to be on Wikipedia. Any pertinent information (such as any tournament successes) should be included into a broader History of football in Iran, or something to that effect. Obviously a lot of work has gone into this page - perhaps the page's creator should set up a specialist Wiki dedicated to Iranian football where this kind of info would be much better suited? Bettia (rawr CRUSH!) 08:28, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As an addendum to the "too long" comment, the fact that it is so big and has so many templates is actually causing problems for my browser, as it takes at least 10-15 seconds to load it. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 08:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I find nothing Indiscriminate about this article and indeed its just the kind of interesting and clearly for some helpful encyclopedic article that makes WP an outstanding encyclopedic research tool. I also detect a bit of the WP:IDONTLIKEIT#I_don.27t_like_it syndrome has creeped into this debate--Mike Cline (talk) 10:38, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Mike Cline, this is "I don't like". Number 57 is the one who put the deletion template on the article and wants to delete this page. there is another poll about deletion of this article dated 14 September 2008 and the result was keep. another admin should vote here. Amirreza (talk) 12:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Aside from the fact that this is another canvassed vote and should therefore be discounted, this is not WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I've made it quite clear that not only des this list fails to serve any useful purpose because the information is already present elsewhere, but its unwieldy size makes it problematic for internet browsers. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 12:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I believe that If anyone wants to know about Iranian football clubs performance in Asia, this article includes useful information. It's just like List of Iranian footballers in European clubs that shows useful information about Iranian football. It may be written bad or reverses some guidelines but I think we should keep this information here or somewhere else. anyway IMO we should keep this information. now if there is a move to another article, lets move it. but I say no to deletion. Amirreza (talk) 11:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

about canvassed vote: I saw Number 57's undo on my talkpage we are a team working on Iranian football and creating such an article is a groupwork so there is not any canvassed vote. we are symphonic. He just predicated us. Amirreza (talk) 11:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The deleted text was "please help us to keep this article", which reads like canvassing for votes to me. Dancarney (talk) 12:17, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this article doesn't appear to be at all useful. The information would be much more meaningful in articles for the individual teams and competitions and left as it is would set a worrying precedent for similar articles on European football. Something along the lines of History of Spanish clubs in European Tournaments would be horrendous. I don't see how List of Iranian footballers in European clubs is warranted either. Dancarney (talk) 12:17, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, lists of every game that an Iranian club has played in a continental competition belongs in an almanac, not an encyclopedia. WP:IINFO seems to be the main policy here and it fails it by a long shot. --Jimbo^[online] 13:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki somewhere. It is a little too much detail for Wikipedia, but it is useful and should be preserved, however, I'm not sure a wiki for this topic has been set up. There are better places to find this information for UEFA tournaments, but I don't know of any for AFC… is this appropriate for Wikibooks? MTC (talk) 19:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The information is an indiscriminate disorganised mess which I cannot make head nor tail of, and I understand football. God help anyone who doesn't know anything about the subject. Peanut4 (talk) 20:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 17:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per items 1-4, 6, and 8 at WP:LC. Stifle (talk) 09:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Hoax. Mr.Z-man 02:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grady Chucking

Notability asserted but no google hits or sources. Suspect hoax. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:50, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Hoax. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 01:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as obvious hoax. Two ghits, neither relevant. JJL (talk) 02:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep. Played in the NFL for several seasons. Clear case of WP:BITE violation. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Slutzker

Biography of a non-notable character; single ref. provided seems to be a search from Ask.com and gives but a few lines of info ←Signed:→Mr. E. Sánchez ^{Get to know me!} / _{Talk to me!}←at≈:→ 01:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - Article fails WP:N. Editor who created the article has multiple warnings on his talk page for removing speedy tags. After a speedy tag was replaced, the editor blanked the article - which is enough to re-speedy under the {db-g7} template. The user's persistent efforts to remove the template were reverted several time by user:Jonathan - see history: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scott_Slutzker&action=history

Eventually, he copied and pasted his user-talk warnings diff into the article. I doubt that we can take this article seriously --Superflewis (talk) 02:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The creator not understanding that he was not to remove the CSD tag has nothing to do with the subject meeting notability. As a matter of fact, the article asserted notability while it was tagged for CSD. And as the subject clearly does meet notability requirements, it's just as well that the discussion came here. Perhaps we would do well to remember that none of us came to the project knowing all the polices and guidelines. Perhaps we would do well to look before we tag, and to avoid biting new editors by hammering at them for not knowing/following the rules when we tag articles for speedy deletion that assert notability. Dloh cierekim 02:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, subject has multiple online reference [38] one claims "played four seasons in the NFL with the Indianapolis Colts and New Orleans Saints as a tight end." [39]. Easily meets WP:ATHLETE and Wikipedia:Notability (people). Jeepday (talk) 02:08, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jeepday. I get multiple Google News hits that say he played for the Colts. This certainly meets WP:BIO. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 02:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he played in the NFL for a few seasons: [40]. Zagalejo^^^ 02:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Jeepday. This guy definately meets WP:N. j (t • c) 02:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest Speedy Keep; clearly meets the WP:N guidelines stipulated in WP:ATHLETE, as pointed out by Jeepday above. As to the comments by Superflewis, it appears to me (and several others over at AIV) to be a situation of a newbie editor being bitten by some overzealous RCers. Parsecboy (talk) 02:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn nomination. Keeper ǀ 76 14:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Raven (book)

This book, upon research, does not appear notable, even though it's about a notable subject. The article, recently created, appears to talk more about the event of the Jonestown massacre than it does the book. I can't find any independent sources that assert definitively that this work of non-fiction is notable (again, the event is notable, without question, but is this recounting of the "story" notable? I think not).The article includes three "sources" that equate to quotes from the author of said book, plus 2 sources about the event, not the book. Keeper ǀ 76 01:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn based on User:Cirt's work. Slinking away slowly :-) Keeper ǀ 76 14:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Easily satisfies WP:NOTE. The article at present unfortunately does not contain a reception section, but the book has most certainly received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, per WP:NOTE. I was quite quickly able to find reviews and significant discussion in WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources including: CHOICE: Current Reviews for Academic Libraries, The New York Times Book Review, Los Angeles Times, San Francisco Review of Books, Library Journal, Psychology Today, Publishers Weekly, Kirkus Reviews, and National Review, among many others. I will work on expanding this article and perhaps getting it up to WP:GA status, but I probably won't be able to get to it for a few days. Cirt (talk) 01:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Cirt for bluelinking the Wikipedia articles for different periodicals. That's only halfway to helpful. Do you have diffs that show these reviews? I'll happily retract this nomination, I wasn't able to find any. Keeper ǀ 76 01:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have diffs, because they may not all be online. I will provide the full citations for all of the above to satisfy WP:V so you can verify this coverage. Cirt (talk) 01:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have provided examples of "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" on this AfD's talk page. Cirt (talk) 02:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Posting those book reviews here as well:

"Raven". CHOICE: Current Reviews for Academic Libraries: 1007. March 1, 1983.
"Raven". Best Sellers: 437. February 1983.
"Raven". The New York Times Book Review. 88. The New York Times Company: 9. December 26, 1982.
Gold, Herbert (December 12, 1982). "Raven". Los Angeles Times. p. 2.
"Raven". San Francisco Review of Books: 18. November 1, 1982.
"Raven". Library Journal. 107: 1890. October 1, 1982.
Goodman, Hal (October 1, 1982). "Raven". Psychology Today. 16: 84–85.
"Raven". Publishers Weekly. 222: 49. September 3, 1982.
"Raven". Kirkus Reviews: 985. August 15, 1982.
Evanier, David (April 16, 1982). "Raven". National Review. 34: 428–430.

There are many more, and I am adding some others directly into the article itself. Cirt (talk) 03:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Along with the above, the book has also been cited repeatedly in newspaper articles. This this San Francisco Chronicle article is typical:
The turning point in Jones' drive for power came in 1975, according to Tim Reiterman's and John Jacobs' exhaustive study, "Raven: The Untold Story of the Rev. Jim Jones and his People."
As well, it's author, journalist Tim Reiterman, is one of the few survivors of the tragedy at Jonestown. He has, in fact, been interviewed about that experience, including a citation of his book, in numerous Television specials and documentaries, including most recently PBS.Mosedschurte (talk) 01:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't doubt that Reiterman is notable, or the events at Jonestown, by any means. This book that is about the event though. Has it, specifically, been reviewed? Found to be notable? I'm willing to be convinced, but I'm seriously not convinced yet. Reiterman survived Jonestown. Hurray! Jonestown massacre happened. Boo. What makes "raven" notable? Keeper ǀ 76 01:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is cited by essentially every other major source about Jonestown. It's the most comprehensive book on the subject.

Other books on Jonestown state this explicitly, such as Salvation and Suicide:

The best comprehensive history on Jim Jones and Peoples Temple, Tim Reiterman and John Jacob's Raven . . .

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mosedschurte (talk • contribs)

Keep. But clean up POV. An entry about a book shouldn't soapbox nor reference itself per reliable sources. -- Banjeboi 01:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If the POV is removed, what's left? Has this book been independently reviewed? Has it "charted" in any recognizable charts? Is it "prominent" within its (narrow) field? I don't see what you mean by "remove POV". What's left? The whole article is POV. Keeper ǀ 76 01:57, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it has been independently reviewed, see this AfD's talk page. It is prominent within its field of the study of Peoples Temple. It is heavily cited in other works. I will work to remove any of the perceived POV as well as dependence on the book itself, and rewrite the article relying heavily on the independent coverage in secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 02:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That was my fault. I started the article and cited Reiterman's own description of his survival in the book figuring that that was the best source for that brief statement. It has obviously been discussed in many other sources, so I have fixed that by citing two. The only "Raven" cite left is the one to its own footnotes and sources.Mosedschurte (talk) 02:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No matter, I can get to fixing it all, it will just take some time. Cirt (talk) 02:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —Cirt (talk) 05:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. —Cirt (talk) 05:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Cirt (talk) 05:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fox Theta Delta

Unsourced content. Will add discussion to WP:FRAT. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 01:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: almost unintelligible. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 09:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lack of reliable sources to back up any claim that this is a notable fraternity. —C.Fred (talk) 16:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google search does not give reliable sources to back up notability.--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, looks like it was written by a member of the said fraternity, doesn't look like it passes notability (yet). IMO, not as notable as, say, Alpha Phi Omega (with its [in]famous Oblation Run) and other notable Philippine collegiate fraternities, or the USA's Phi Beta Kappa and other equally notable college frats. --- Tito Pao (talk) 05:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Realization (design)

Dictionary definition of a non-notable term. Tavix (talk) 01:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as of right now it's only a dicdef. RockManQ (talk) 01:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since it's a dictionary definition. BTW, it's been tagged for transwiki to Wiktionary. Cliff smith ^talk 01:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Bad dict. def. Equendil Talk 08:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I have no idea if this is a notable term or not, but it is not a dicdef. The way I read this article, realization is a technical term for a specific process—consisting of three steps—that is used in design. If this is a notable term, there would be ample room to elaborate around the three steps, and further, how the three steps would integrate with each other, including comparisons of the 2D and 3D methods. If it is a notable term, it belongs on Wikipedia and not on Wiktionary. Sources would be nice to establish notability. Arsenikk ^(talk) 21:08, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a technical term, it's just a word meaning "making real" that could be used in any context where a project involves making a product (and probably where management/marketing has devolved into using words such as "paradigm" and "empower" as often as possible). There is no deep meaning behind this. I am removing the transwiki tag by the way, wiktionary doesn't need bad entries. Equendil Talk 22:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And to drive the point home, just have a look at the original version of the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Realization_(design)&oldid=232127110 Equendil Talk 22:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Metal Slug (series). Cirt (talk) 21:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General Morden

This character does not establish notability independent of the video game series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 18:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. TTN (talk) 19:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Metal Slug (series), where all the pertinent information is. Not to mention this article is more about his right-hand man than it is about the villian himself (which is about two paragraphs, tops). Nifboy (talk) 19:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Almost entirely plot summary and in-universe detail. Doubtful that this character specifically has ever received substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 15:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — More original research and plot summaries. MuZemike (talk) 05:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
merge As main antagonist, might be worth an article except that the material could be easily merged, so it's the simplest solution. No reason given why merge is inappropriate, no reason given why redirect is inappropriate. Therefore, no reason to delete, as there are preferred alternatives. DGG (talk) 01:12, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge per everyone. Needs to exist in some capacity. --63.3.1.1 (talk) 23:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any worthwhile information into the his respective Metal Slug game(s). --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Delete and) redirect to Metal Slug (series), where everything worthwhile already seems to be covered. I agree with the nom otherwise. – sgeureka ^t•c 18:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mars People

This race of characters does not establish notability independent of the video game series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 18:52, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. TTN (talk) 19:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to ~~Metal Slug (series), where the description section is directly copied from~~ Martian. The remainder of the article is a WP:TRIVIA-style list of "homages". Nifboy (talk) 19:30, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if deleted, redirect to Martian 70.51.9.124 (talk) 08:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. If deleted, it should then be redirected to Martian as a possible search term. Tavix (talk) 01:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing to meet our sourcing requirements in WP:N. I would not object to creating a redirect to Martian, but since this article's history is not remotely relevant there is no need to keep it. Create the redirect later. Randomran (talk) 01:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Original research does not pay. Let it be known of the deletion, then redirect later as suggested; so if it's reverted, we can go right to CSD. MuZemike (talk) 05:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nomination is thorough and complete. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 22:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Hannah Montana Hits Remixed

The album in question doesn't seem notable. iMatthew (talk) 16:24, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, I was under the impression the album did not exist before finding information on it elsewhere. Wikipedia's current complete handling of the Hannah Montana albums, relatively would induce the idea of including this album.NIVINCo (talk) 17:24, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing notable about this album; fails WP:MUSIC#Albums. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 20:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not covered in any reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 04:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 11:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --J332 (talk) 20:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. MBisanz ^talk 11:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MLB 09: The Show

AfDs for this article:

Fails notability and a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. No references, inline citation or even external links. Almost no content. This article is a similar recreation of the previous article that was deleted, and it doesn't fare much better. Superflewis (talk) 00:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - per nom --Superflewis (talk) 00:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and you could even make a case for speedy as a recreated article that was deleted. Tavix (talk) 00:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete, fails WP:CRYSTAL, no sourcing, almost no context, fails notability guidlines. Sub-Stub; the only thing worse would probably be blatant vandalism. RockManQ (talk) 01:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this speculation. Cliff smith ^talk 01:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete (G4) — blatant recreation of deleted material. It's the same thing before it was deleted the first time. Will boldly tag as such. MuZemike (talk) 05:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MuZemike (talk) 05:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. seicer | talk | contribs 19:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Atherton

nn bio John MacReen (talk) 11:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete could not find anything on Factiva about this particular Paul Atherton, and without newspaper coverage I think this article will be impossible to source.--Commander Keane (talk) 11:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Through my searches I discovered that Paul Atherton is running a campaign to raise funds for the National Centre for Domestic Violence by releasing his docudrama Silent Voices on DVD with all profits going to the charity - so I hope this deletion request is just coincidence.

This entry has been posted on Wiki for nearly 4 months with no issues. When The Ballet of Change was first drawn to my attention in November 2007 the online coverage was significant, it was mentioned on national radio sites, the online streaming of BBC news etc. which is why I believe it wasn’t marked for deletion in the first place and as the notes suggest in Notability is not Temporary “If a subject has met the general notability guideline, there is no need to show continual coverage or interest in the topic”.

However, over the course of time, much of that live news has now been removed from the sites and much of the printed news is of course, not on line.

The claim is that Paul Atherton was the first person in the world to be granted permission to use the Coca-Cola Billboard’s advertising hoarding to show a film on a world famous landmark.

I believe that cannot be in contest.

A quick search through Google using the term “Ballet of Change” brings the results of a variety of confirmation sources not least the sites owner (i.e. the Landlords of the Billboards) Land Securities on their Piccadilly Circus Lights Website Piccadilly Lights The British Film Archive at the British Film Institute where due to the notability of the film it has been secured in perpetuity at The BFI the acronym of NFA (stands for National Film Archive), The British Film Councils website Britfilms and in the listings magazine publication TimeOut, the industry standard magazine for the Broadcast Industry in the UK Broadcast and as it was Heritage Lottery Funded the funds can be proved to have been made from the source on the HLF website.

As such I would request the NfD to be removed.

I am the author of this article Amanda Paul (talk) 15:35 16 September 2008 (GMT)

(I have indented your comment, I hope you do not mind) Upon a second look on Factiva I found an article that mentions Paul Atherton: "Charities refuse proceeds of DVD", Hannah Jordan, 17 September 2008, Third Sector. I am not familiar with that source, but it could be reliable.

Anyhow, the problem we face is: do reliable third-party sources exist to allow us to write a Wikipedia article? I don't think press releases count as reliable sources and the "Silent Voices" link above appears to be a press release (I am happy to be corrected on this point). If the press covered the press release (and Factiva will give a good indication, covering many news publications, including printed news that is no longer online) then we would have reliable third party sources, but we do not currently.

One question to illustrate the problem, which reliable source exists stating that Paul Atherton attended Cardiff Business School? If we can't find a source then that should be removed immediately per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. This is also the case with the Coca-Cola information, please provide reliable sources.

P.S. I just realised that the reason I didn't find the Third Sector article last time is that the source is brand new! If there is coverage in reliable sources in the future then there is the possibility that an article is fine for Wikipedia.--Commander Keane (talk) 12:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see any press coverage that mainly about him and not coincidental. Wikipedia is not IMDB. VG ☎ 10:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —Tassedethe (talk) 10:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Commander Keene I appreciate your corrections. I am new to Wikipedia and have not had to defend my articles before - so your patience, understanding and corrections are much appreciated.

Many of my sources for both my articles this and the "Ballet of Change" will never have been or are no longer online - but I will happily provided them if you believe this helps.

The issue here though, must be, first and foremost, do the Wikipedians think the first person to have his film shown on a globally famous landmark (i.e. The Coca-Billboard in Piccadilly Circus, London) notable? If the answer to that question is No, then there is little point pursuing my lines of inquiry. In my opinion Paul Atherton's notability comes from his success at achieving a first - if The Ballet of Change is considered notable then by definition so does its creator and vice-versa.

Are we measuring notability merely by online press coverage at any given time?

For example, you asked where I sourced some of my references - Paul's University career was found in his Alumni magazine from Cardiff University and also referenced in the South Wales Echo (The National News paper for Wales) in 1996, which of course you wouldn't be able to source online.

HIs work career, such as his time at Prospect Television (at least in part) can be verified by an online presence Skillset arrange a "Lucky Break' at Production Show in 2002. However the remaining part of his career, Touch of Silk for instance was again referenced from the South Wales Echo South Wales Echo "Local business man rescues Revlon President" Pg 7 November 1994 , The Sun Newspaper "Charles props up Naughty Knickers" Pg 7 December 26 1994, The News of the World, News In Brief Pg 3 "Brief Encounters" November 23 1994 , BBC Radio Wales, News Article Broadcast October 16th 1994 at 11:00am, Vogue Magazine, Diary Editor Clarissa Brooke Turner "A Touch of Silk - Something to remember " April 1995 to name but a few, but back in 1994 none of these publications had an online presence and they don't make their back copies available through online search engines but does this make them any less notable or reliable.

These references can all be checked publicly (as I've done) they just require an investment of time and Money.

His PR career can be tracked through the trade publications of PR Week. Articles like "Capital Gold - A Case Study" Pages 16-17,5 May 1998, "Harvard appoints new Account Manager" Pg 5, 9 February 1999 and "The Telegraphs' Match of the Day" Pg 28 4 April 2000.

This brings us up to date. I notice Vasile states that this is not IMDb. However, IMDb's entries are rigorously researched by independent researchers and only allowed to be published when every fact has been checked (unlike Wikipedia). Is this not a reliable source under Wikipeadia's definition?

As for Silent Voices this is available on Amazon and as you rightly pointed out in the Charities Trade Publication Third Sector so I think enough reliable sources for that.

But back to the Ballet of Change, here are some of the references to the articles published at the time BBC News (closed the programme) – Friday 23rd November 2007 18:55 – 19:00, Evening Standard, Pg 2 "Piccadilly Lights up its own History" 23rd November 2007, London Lite Pg2 "Films beamed onto Piccadilly Circus Ads" 23rd November 2007, Time Out – 20th November 2007 Press Association "Historic Film Event" 20th November 2007, London Paper "Lighting up History" 21st November 2007, LBC – Announcements throughout the day and mentioned numerous times by Nick Ferrari 23rd November 2007, Capital Radio (covered by Johnny Vaughan on his morning show) Thursday 22nd November 2007 08:30 – 09:00, Colourful Radio – Arts - (30 Minute interview) Thursday 22nd November 2007 between 14:!5 – 14:45 and again I reiterate these can all be checked but most can no longer be found online.

I have the cuttings for al these articles in PDF formats if you want them, but you cannot find them online. Either they were time limited such as the radio shows or the news story never made it from print to online in the case of The Evening Standard.

This is the link to the BBC news site which aired the event "The Ballet of Change" but is no longer current - instead it is showing this weeks news - as it changes every week.

Thank you for putting this up in the United Kingdom related articles. I hope some wikipedians from the UK will be able to assist me in my quest.

I would also like to clarify that the press release on Land Securities website, is on their website and other than recording the event and naming Paul Atherton it has nothing to do with him. This proves that the owners of the Coca-Cola billboard not only acknowledge that the event happened but also that it was the first time a film had been shown there. Why is it a Press Release published by a globally famous company about a third party would not be established as a reliable source?

And finally, could someone please explain why The BFI (The British Film Institute), which caries the largest film collection in the world and as such is incredibly selective in what it accepts as contributions, wouldn't be acknowledged as a reliable source?

Again, I'd request the removal of the NfD.

- I am the author of this article Amanda Paul (talk) 20:43 19 September 2008 (GMT)

Delete if his work is actually important, there will be reviews of it in published sources. DGG (talk) 01:45, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Amanda Paul I have sent you an email it would be great if you can email me a couple of reliable sources discussing Paul Atherton. I can not respond to your entire comment above, but on a couple of points... I was able to find in the Evening Standard "Piccadilly Lights up its own History", but there is no mention of Paul Atherton. Reliable sources that are not online are still entirely reliable. About the "Wikipedia is not IMDB" comment, I think the point is that even if a film is carried by IMDB, or the BFI, it does not mean that the producer will have enough reliable sources to create a Wikipedia article.--Commander Keane (talk) 03:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment::Apologies as I stated in my previous post I am new to this - I have discovered from a user that I had voted twice it was not intentional - I'd be grateful if you could correct anything I have done wrong. But I believe I've corrected it appropriately now.

No-one has yet addressed the question in regards to the British National Film Archive especially in respect to the notability guidelines in general notability .4 and also in terms of it being the first film to be shown on an advertising billboard (an accomplishment made even more significant by the fact that Coca-Cola gave up prime advertising time for it to be screened) in respect to other evidence of notability .5. As its is the nature of the films achievement and not the content of the film - many of the criteria normally associated with a film are difficult to apply. For instance as previously mentioned it did not and should not be expected to get a general release. The style of the film would not make it suitable for festivals or awards and would by definition never be reviewed (just taking into account of the size of the screen it was edited and broadcast on - it would make this an impossibility for a normal release it neither being 16:9 or 4:3 Formats).

DGG I refer you back to my previous post to VG in respect to reviews.

Commander Keane has requested the pdf cuttings I have referred to above by e-mail, which will be sent in due course. If he could confirm he's received them on Wikipedia I'd be very grateful and could you also please tell me where you were able to source the Evening Standard Article - Thanks.

It would be incredibly useful as part of this debate if Wikipedians would address the questions I have raised.

Are there any Wikipedians in the UK who could back me up - which leads onto another point. When we talk about Notability is it Global or Nationwide?

As previously stated in this discussion I believe this and The Ballet of Change: Piccadilly Circus's AfD entry are intrinsically linked. Is there anyway of merging the two discussions.

Thanks

- I am the author of this article Amanda Paul (talk) 10:20 20 September 2008 (GMT)
Comment I sourced the Evening Standard using Factiva (subscription based) I can email the article to anyone who wants it, although it is rather short and does not mention the names of the films displayed. I do not trust what is said on Notability pages, at the end of the day all Wikipedia content must be able to be verified from reliable sources and notability is a result of this. Any notability guideline comes second to verifiability.--Commander Keane (talk) 11:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commander Keane can you please confirm that you have received my email - I had trouble sending it (File size 6MB).

In addition this may help with verifiability.

Comment An extract from the British Film Archive Collecting Policy to be found as a Download

4.2 Cultural significance

25. The overriding criterion for acceptance into the national collection of moving image material for the United Kingdom is that the work should be of cultural and/or historical importance to the British people, recognising the diversity of British communities.

26. Because this is the national collection of moving image material in the UK, acquisition of British-produced and British-related material will be prioritised over non-British material, especially for the preservation collection. However, much non-British material is also of cultural importance and some non-British material may be highly relevant to particular cross-cultural audiences for the reference collection.

27. The bfi does not aim to hold a comprehensive collection, even for British- produced material. It aims to collect works that have or had real cultural impact, or historical significance, or that are highly representative of production, society or cultural values, or which are valuable for educational purposes or as information resources for study. Examples include: - High quality productions, where the production values and treatment are of a high artistic merit or information content.

And of course we are not talking any advertising billboard - we are talking about one of the world's most famous billboards in one of the worlds most noted landmark. If this isn't regarded as a unique achievement then I think the scope of WP:MOVIE#cite_note-5 needs to be revised.

I believe there is talk of doing it at Time Square, New York, next year.

- I am the author of this article Amanda Paul (talk) 22:10 20 September 2008 (GMT)
Comment I did receive an email Amanda Paul but it only contained one attachment - the BFI policy, so nothing relevent to this deletion discussion I'm afraid.--Commander Keane (talk) 08:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability is not temporary. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: A list of search results: "The ballet of change an historical film event", britishfilmscatalogue: "The Ballet of Change: Piccadilly Circus", timeout.com: "Ballet of Change", hlf.org.uk: "heritage Fund Lottery", Paul Atherton at Naymz, pablopost.co.uk: "“The Ballet of Change” film made history....", pressbox.co.uk: "Ballet of Change An Historical Film Event", hotfroguk.co.uk: "Ballet of Change An Historical Film Event", ftvvdb.bfi.org" "The BALLET OF CHANGE PICCADILLY CIRCUS", flicckr.com: "The Ballet of Change: Piccadilly Circus", bbc.co.uk: "Paul Atherton", web.mac.com: "The Ballet of Change: Piccadilly Circus", bebo.com: "Paul Atherton, 'Producer, Simple (TV) Productions'", broadcastnow.co.uk: "Broadcast Letters - November 9", flickr.com: "The Ballet of Change, Odeon Cinema, Leicester Square, "United Kingdom" London GBR", et al. I myself feel these sources in context and support combine to show notability of the man and his accomplishments, specially since his works have been selected for preservation in a ntional archive per WP:NF. Yup, he's notable. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Sources seem to exist and newby editor making good faith effort to address concerns. Clean-up and help them through sourcing offline material, and yes, press releases can be used as sources although independent coverage is preferred. Amanda Paul, you need to become familiar with Wikipedia:Citation templates, the links on the article, in many cases, should be coverted to a citation to support the content. -- Banjeboi 08:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most (poor) references refer only to his work with the film. Any verifiable material can be merged with that article if it survives AfD. Tassedethe (talk) 08:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have received a few pdfs from Amanda Paul and they tend briefly mention Paul Atherton in the context of the film The Ballet of Change so I tend to agree with a merger/redirect of Paul Atherton to the film's article if it survives. Incidentally, I don't understand the relevance of links to social networking sites (ie Bebo) above.--Commander Keane (talk) 03:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think a lot of the references are to a different Paul Atherton, and the others mainly refer to the film. Delete and redirect to the film, if that is kept. Stifle (talk) 09:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Commander Keane I would be grateful if you could confirm that the Google search PDF. I sent you clearly showed that LBC covered the news story and that The Museum in Docklands, London, acknowledged the event and screened the films and neither can now be found on the Internet. Also that you have the London Lite article I cited above has also been received and again cannot be found on the internet.

It should also be pointed out that Paul Atherton has made numerous television appearances not least, Junipers Production of The Great British Black Invasion for the UK's Channel 4, which as a contributor (he is the caricature in the hat and the scarf, Top Row third from the left), looks at Paul's history in relation to his mixed race heritage. A clip from which can be found at YouTube.

What do I need to do, if anything, to prove the other not-online sources I cited above?

Stifle could you please explain what references you believe not to be associated to this Paul Atherton. If you are doing a Google search could I recommend that you use "Paul Atherton" "Simple TV".

It should also be noted that Paul was asked to make a reading contribution to an Oxford University charity project called Reading for Life that included a select contributions list including Clive James, Tom Stoppard and Michael Horovitz.

-- Banjeboi Thanks for the advice. I'll attempt to tidy up this article in the manner you suggest this weekend - if it still exists!

I am the author of this article Amanda Paul (talk) 16:11 24 September 2008 (GMT)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mr.Z-man 23:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Haganah

This group is not notable, the article does not establish nor reliably source notability, in fact it is entirely unsourced CdC—Chuleta de Chancho (talk) 00:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: unsourced. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 09:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sourcing can be worked on but the group has recently been receiving press internationally because they were involved in preventing Al Qaeda from releasing a video they planned to distribute on 9/11. That story can be found here. --Daysleeper47 (talk) 14:50, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is weak and the organization is tiny, but they have reasonable press coverage in the Washington Post [41], Newsweek [42], and CNN [43]. --John Nagle (talk) 17:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The founder was also very recently (in July) on 60 Minutes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Einsteindonut (talk • contribs) 01:09, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:19, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
sources are more about what happened than the group, more neededCdC—Chuleta de Chancho (talk) 07:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable, this "organization" seems to be one person sitting at his computer. Maybe this person himself has become notable, and maybe the entire subject of "private counter-terrorism operations on the Internet" should have an article (if it does not already.) If it is kept, the article obviously needs to be sourced and NPOV'd, starting with the "direct quote from nowhere" in the first sentence of the article. 6SJ7 (talk) 16:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. seicer | talk | contribs 19:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Ballet of Change: Piccadilly Circus

nn film John MacReen (talk) 11:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Through my searches I discovered that Paul Atherton is running a campaign to raise funds for the National Centre for Domestic Violence by releasing his docudrama Silent Voices on DVD with all profits going to the charity - so I hope this deletion request is just coincidence.

This entry has been posted on Wiki for nearly 4 months with no issues. When The Ballet of Change was first drawn to my attention in November 2007 the online coverage was significant, it was mentioned on national radio sites, the online streaming of BBC news etc. which is why I believe it wasn’t marked for deletion in the first place and as the notes suggest in Notability is not Temporary “If a subject has met the general notability guideline, there is no need to show continual coverage or interest in the topic”. However, over the course of time, much of that live news has now been removed from the sites and much of the printed news is of course, not on line. The claim is that Paul Atherton was the first person in the world to be granted permission to use the Coca-Cola Billboard’s advertising hoarding to show a film on a world famous landmark. I believe that cannot be in contest. A quick search through Google using the term “Ballet of Change” brings the results of a variety of confirmation sources not least the sites owner (i.e. the Landlords of the Billboards) Land Securities on their Piccadilly Circus Lights Website Piccadilly Lights The British Film Archive at the British Film Institute where due to the notability of the film it has been secured in perpetuity at The BFI the acronym of NFA (stands for National Film Archive), The British Film Councils website Britfilms and in the listings magazine publication TimeOut, the industry standard magazine for the Broadcast Industry in the UK Broadcast and as it was Heritage Lottery Funded the funds can be proved to have been made from the source on the HLF website. As such I would request the NfD to be removed. I am the author of this article Amanda Paul (talk) 15:35 16 September 2008 (GMT)

Comments merged. For ease of reading, please use one bullet per comment. Thanks. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:17, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Letters to the editor written by the producer and press releases are non-notable per WP:MOVIE. I didn't see a single review in all those links listed in the article. VG ☎ 10:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Remeber WP:NTEMP and the fact "The film was selected for preservation in a national archive." It passes WP:NF. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —Tassedethe (talk) 10:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Commander Keene I appreciate your corrections. I am new to Wikipedia and have not had to defend my articles before - so your patience, understanding and corrections are much appreciated.