Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 November 7

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by EdJohnston (talk | contribs) at 04:53, 12 November 2008 (Relisting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mastan Malli). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< November 6 November 8 >

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. Those opposing the article's deletion have generally failed to cite any relevant Wikipedia policies or guidelines, instead insisting on "transparency" and positing various conspiracy theories. In addition, the vast majority of those opposing deletion are new editors, or editors who have not edited Wikipedia for months, only to suddenly show up here demanding the article be kept. The fact that this deletion discussion has been widely advertised offsite (e.g. [1], [[deprecated source?] [2], [3]), with people there agitating that it should be kept, explains their presence here. Those supporting deletion of the article have cited relevant guidelines (e.g. WP:N, WP:POVFORK), and point out that the actual sources used, aside from one, aren't about the subject. Another relevant policy is WP:CSD G4. Perhaps most importantly, the only purpose of this article appears to be as a means of attacking Emanuel or his father; thus WP:BLP comes into play. This AfD also needs to be closed quickly, as this deletion page itself is becoming a violation of WP:BLP. Jayjg (talk) 01:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin M. Emanuel

AfDs for this article:
Benjamin M. Emanuel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A minor figure. Not notable as a mere member of the Irgun. Not notable as a pediatrician. Not notable as the father of three notable sons. Can easily be covered in their biographies without a separate article. Biruitorul Talk 00:07, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep. There are thousands of references to Benjamin Emanuel on Google. DeadNative (talk) 19:31, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There are, let us say, 6-7,000 hits on him (different from references). But can you bring evidence that he has received "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources", as required by WP:N? -- Biruitorul Talk 20:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The guideline states: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." Benjamin Emanuel meets that stricture. To go after this page while "articles" such as Father_(song) have been ignored for deletion strikes me as a rather particular agenda. DeadNative (talk) 20:53, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Please review WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and WP:AGF. And I repeat my earlier request, with more emphasis: can you bring evidence that he has received "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources", as required by WP:N? -- Biruitorul Talk 21:54, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    A look at the references used in the article would suffice if one doubted. New York Times, Haaretz, Fortune, Maariv, Jerusalem Post, New York Daily News and the Chicago Tribune are proof of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Earliest mention is 1997 and latest is just today.DeadNative (talk) 01:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Even before Rahm Emanuel’s recent political ascent, Benjamin Emanuel’s life story has been deemed important enough to be profiled by many news sources, including the NYT and Fortune Magazine. But now with Rahm Emanuel’s new prominence, Benjamin Emanuel’s participation in the Irgun and his recent quote about his son’s putative support for Israel are fueling many recent news articles. (Just one example: [4]) International perceptions about the Emanuel family have policy implications for the new Obama administration. A properly-sourced, authoritative wiki biography is important to clarify the facts of Dr. Emanuel’s life and to quash the false rumors that are circulating.Claisen (talk) 02:46, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The information is important and should not be hidden from the public on wikipedia (which unfortunately has acquired some reputation for 'selective information').— Preceding unsigned comment added by Joneve (talk • contribs)
    No one is trying to "hide" anything, but if an article fails to meet certain policies (which this does), then it should be deleted. Biruitorul Talk 03:21, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. The articles cited appear to be diverse enough secondary sources for wp:v and wp:n. Merging is a less attractive option given that not all is directly relevant to his sons' lives. —siroχo 04:36, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The information is important; if anything should be changed it's the Wikipedia deletion criteria. Two other parents of a notable figure who currently have Wikipedia entries, but who otherwise would not notable in and of themselves, are Barack Obama, Sr. and Ann Dunham. Are you suggesting that their pages should also be deleted? Actually, have they met the "independent" Wikipedia criteria for entry? "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." I think those entries should be maintained regardless of guidelines (remember, they are only guidelines), and it seems to me that if we'll be keeping entries on Barack Obama's parants, the entry for Rahm Emanuel's father should be maintained as well. User:Earpol Earpol (talk) 11:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, if we have an article on Bill Clinton's father, shouldn't we have one on John Podesta's too? Moreover, a) Obama and Dunham are parents of a future President, not Chief of Staff, and b) they've received far more coverage than Emanuel. Biruitorul Talk 17:14, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Merge - see WP:COATRACK. This article is not really about Benjamin Emanuel, as evidenced by the fact that none of the sources provided are actually about him; it is a POV fork of Rahm Emanuel, designed to draw greater attention to his background and the 'pro-Israel' quote by his father. Everything in this article can (and should) be merged into Rahm Emanuel; Benjamin does not pass the notability test for an article in his own right. Terraxos (talk) 16:46, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it/merge it or make a copy on place where you want merge and then nobody would be afraid that deletion is because of suppression of truth. When info is on right place, then you can delete it as duplicate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.48.187.211 (talk) 22:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This makes no sense, but I will only observe that no one is trying to "suppress the truth". We wouldn't have that ability even if we wanted to (ie, we don't control the websites of Ha'aretz, the New York Times, etc.). Biruitorul Talk 22:46, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The person wanting this deleted is obviously biased and is trying to hide something, perhaps a mossad or globalist agent? Articles on less known people with even less information are allowed to be kept all the time on wikipedia. I do agree that more contributions and information to this article would be helpful, it is the father of the new white house chief of staff after all. Vipercat (talk) 22:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    First, please retract those egregious allegations. Second, I never cited anything but Wikipedia policy in trying to get this deleted, so no, I'm neither "biased" nor "trying to hide something". Third, does the father of any other WH Chief of Staff (Cheney and Rumsfeld included) have an article? No. Biruitorul Talk 22:46, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Less than 24 hours after I created this page, you added the AfD tag. It doesn't speak well of your motives that you didn't even give the page a chance to evolve a little before adding your two cents. DeadNative (talk) 00:14, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Even two years on, the essential fact of Emanuel's non-notability would likely have remained the same. My "motives" are failure to meet WP:N - that's it! And it's a great motive to boot. Biruitorul Talk 00:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "My "motives" are failure to meet WP:N..."
    A subjective call. BTW, who pointed this page out to you for AfD?DeadNative (talk) 18:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There seems to be a fanatical propagandist or 'agent' (at least one) with a vested interest in getting rid of this article. Read the script - this is not intended as an 'egregious allegation' - I would like to see Wikipedia recover/remain a trusted source of information. This is not the first time this has happened on Wikipedia, and it will not help any citizen in the world in the short or long run for suppression, and/or distortion, of information to rule. Wikipedia is respected as an encyclopedia, not as a propaganda platform. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joneve (talk • contribs)
    Editor has already stated keep above. Khukri 15:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm a fanatical adherent of WP:N. Accusing me of being a propagandist, an agent or having a "vested interest in getting rid of this article" is absurd. I care not one way or the other about Dr Emanuel. I do, however, care that his biography does not belong here. Biruitorul Talk 15:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN-bio, being a member of any organisation, no matter how contentious it may have been, does not automatically impart notability to the member, and being the father of someone notable again does not make the subject themselves notable. It does not meet WP:N and for those wanting to see "truth" please read the very first line of WP:V. And I will also comment there seems to be a varying lack of assumption of good faith on certain editors parts here, discussing subjects which are outside the remit of Wikipedia, the article and their involvement in it, and trying to imply certain positions to those who maybe in disagreement, when the subject at hand is literally the article itself and it's adherence to Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. So please keep the discussions on track. Khukri 14:23, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as futile as this recommendation will be. Please, everyone, try to see past any political motivation here. This is a man who would not even have an article right now if his son was not the incoming White House Chief of Staff. All of the referenced articles are about Rahm, or about Rahm and his brothers; not one of them is about Benjamin. Parents do not inherit their child's notability; this is well-established precedent. Much more suspicious politically than Biruitorul's nomination is the creation of this article in the first place; it certainly has the appearance of being a POV fork of Rahm Emmanuel, designed solely to make sure the quotation is presented prominently. I am not recommending deletion for any partisan reason, save, perhaps for a desire to see partisan POV forks limited. Powers T 14:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Several references don't necessarily mandate notability: we need several references for him specifically. A single interview surely isn't enough, and tangential bits about him in sources about his sons don't do anything more than provide reliable sources for small bits of information on his sons' articles, as suggested by the nominator. Nyttend (talk) 14:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He was important in his own right in the Irgun and terrorism they brought to the many victims. This article needs more information added to make it a more detailed Biography. To remove it is to censor information that people have a right to access. There are many more weak bios out there that are better candidates for removal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dahermit (talk • contribs) 14:50, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As it stands this falls squarely into unverified hearsay, you may know it to be true, all around you may know it to be true, but if this is to be included it needs to be verifiable, reliably sourced, not original research and meet a number of other guidelines. It is very easy to bandy around the words censorship, but the core of wikipedia is about where the information comes from, if it meets the above guidelines then it has a good chance of swaying this AfD. But until such time people also have a right to access that they can trust to be reliable, not what certain quarters believe to be the truth. Khukri 15:03, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, please. If you wish to exercise your right to access information on non-notable figures, use Google! No one is (or even can) "censoring" anything here. Biruitorul Talk 15:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The original comment says "Not notable as a mere member of the Irgun. Not notable as a pediatrician. Not notable as the father of three notable sons." All of those may be, but combined, he becomes notable and relevant. And being mentioned only in other articles would render the man one-dimensional, and the information disjointed. Dukeofwulf (talk) 16:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge contents (to the degree that they are at all notable enough) into Rahm Emanuel and delete this article. This is about the different between a general encyclopaedia and a genealogical project. Aspect of some notable person’s life (like a few sentences about a notable person’s parents) belongs in the article about that notable person, not in forked-off, separate articles. No information will be “hidden” that way. -- Olve Utne (talk) 23:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I can only still quote this one:

Mostly because for a website whose mission is to promote free access to all information, not just relevant or politically expedient information, deletions are tantatmount to censorship and repression. Nothing more to say. Smartcom5 (talk) 23:14, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:Coatrack as someone mentioned above. He is not notable in and of himself. All refs given in the article relate to one quote he made in the last couple of days about his son's appointment. That quote is already appropriately addressed in the Rahm Emanuel article. --MPerel 00:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "All refs given in the article relate to one quote he made in the last couple of days..."

Tht's incorrect. Three of the articles, or almost half, reference Benjamin Emanuel before his infamous quote. One is from 1997, two are from 2006. DeadNative (talk) 00:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to Good Times. MBisanz talk 20:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Willona Woods

Willona Woods (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This character does not establish notability independent of its series through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement. TTN (talk) 15:39, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This should at least be redirected to Good Times. Zagalejo^^^ 07:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as article has no evidence of having received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject and is wholly constitutive of plot. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 14:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Major character in a major series. I'd have no objection to a merge to a character list, but there doesn't seem to be one at the moment. Plenty of news hits [5]. In fact a huge number for that old of a show. Books also have a large number of passing references. Enough in my opinion to establish notability. [6] —Preceding unsigned comment added by hobit (talk • contribs) 19:49, 3 November 2008
  • Merge as for the other characters to an article for them all. Individual ones in such a list need not be Notable--there is no such requirement for indiviual items of article content. No reason given applies as an objection to this--suitable descriptive content can come from the fiction itself. As for keeping a separate article, at this point it does not really make sense until there are some kind of sources. Lets work towards a compromise on these. DGG (talk) 18:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, kurykh 22:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect to Good_Times. The history is intact should any editor be interested in performing a merge, or creating of list of characters from the program. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 14:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Penny Gordon Woods

Penny Gordon Woods (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This character does not establish notability independent of its series through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement. TTN (talk) 15:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to parent article (the show), without the unsourced plot details, there's not enough left to sustain an article. - Mgm|(talk) 21:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as for the other characters to an article for them all. Individual ones in such a list need not be Notable--there is no such requirement for indiviual items of article content. No reason given applies as an objection to this--suitable descriptive content can come from the fiction itself. As for keeping a separate article, at this point it does not really make sense until there are some kind of sources. Lets work towards a compromise on these. DGG (talk) 18:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, kurykh 22:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 20:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Redirect to Alternative fuel vehicle. Any content worth preserving can be merged at editor discretion to the target of the redirect. EdJohnston (talk) 04:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative propulsion

Alternative propulsion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Poorly defined (states that it is not internal combustion in the lead, but much of the body is about versions of internal combustion), only one source, heavily overlaps other existing articles, and lots of OR. Perhaps a redirect to Alternative fuel, as no information beyond that article is provided, or a disambiguation page would be appropriate. NJGW (talk) 22:50, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. EdJohnston (talk) 04:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Iron Cross (demo)

Iron Cross (demo) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Demos tend to be non notable unless they are covered in multiple reliable sources. This one is only mentioned on the official site and is up for a free download. Fails WP:MUSIC. Undead Warrior (talk) 22:22, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, OK. I guess this discussion is over, right? So I'll include this info in the band's page.--Deathmagnetic08 (talk) 20:08, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. EdJohnston (talk) 04:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elephant Parade

Elephant Parade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Non-notable book. Fails WP:BK. Could not find any reliable sources. Millbrooky (talk) 22:08, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following relate pages because it is a duplicate of the article linked above:

Elephant parade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Comment Someone wrote this book and is trying to include an article about it in this encyclopedia. There are an awful lot of templates on their talk page, but not a single humanoid explaining how things work. These are actual people whose articles we are rejecting. I don't disagree with the above comments, but some humanity would be a good thing. Not trying to attack anyone, just sharing a comment. Please accept in good faith. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The trouble is that Wikipedia is deluged with self-promotional articles, most of which are deleted without even getting a deletion discussion. (Have a look at the deletion log to see how often articles get deleted as an A7.) If Wikipedia was to allow in every article when deletion might hurt someone's feelings, it would cease to function as an encyclopedia. Likewise, there are only finite number of volunteers patrolling the pages, and you cannot reasonably expect them to write personalised messages each time. People who have replied generally get a reply from a human back, and, in case cases, get enough help needed to save the article (not that I can see any way of saving the article in this case). I personally would require non-autoconfirmed users to confirm their intended article is not vanity/spam/copypaste article before before allowing them to start writing (in which case, you have no grounds to complain if you ignore that and it gets deleted), but that's my own view. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 11:13, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I see there's a duplicate article located at Elephant parade. --Millbrooky (talk) 23:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:N and WP:BK. Themfromspace (talk) 00:49, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The book is published through CreateSpace, an on-demand publisher. The only coverage I can find on Google News is a press release. There is no evidence of any significant reviews or other coverage that would establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 02:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep per WP:SNOW, WP:BEFORE, and WP:N. Bearian (talk) 20:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Output

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

This nomination is a little unusual. Although I am nominating the article, I am going to !vote keep. The article was deleted under a G6 speedy (housekeeping) and the former disambiguation page merged over the top of it (see log). This has effectively deleted the original article without discussion, which I feel is not appropriate. Since the deleting admin will neither allow me to restore the material, nor start a deletion discussion himself, I am nominating the article on his behalf. SpinningSpark 21:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The article is useful and uncontroversial. While being unreferenced, it is far from being unverifiable. The Telecommunications section, at least, had a reference at one time to Federal Standard 1037C. I am still searching the history trying to determine why this was deleted. This may be a sad, unimportant article, in the Greater Wikipedia, but it is harming nothing, telling no untruths, libelling no-one and should be kept. SpinningSpark 21:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The information may be useful, but not here. Recommend moving all useful information to the relevant pages (if it's not covered there already), then Redirect to Output (disambiguation), adding further entries to disambiguation pages if necessary. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 22:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Right, ignore that. I've just seen that Output (disambiguation) is in itself a redirect to Output. As such, it doesn't make sense to delete, merge or redirect this, but neither can we keep this as it is if the guidelines for disambiguation pages are to mean anything. As such, I recommend to close this discussion and continue the discussion of the talk page, with the view that this should be converted to a standard disambiguation page. Unless there are very good reasons why third-party sources compare different types of output to each other, I'd count this original research.
  • Redirect to Output (disambiguation) - -' The Spook (TALK) (Share the Love with Barnstars) 22:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close and discuss on the article talk page whether this should be converted to a standard disambiguation page, and whether any useful content should be merged elsewhere. Agree with TenPoundHammer - this isn't an AfD issue. PhilKnight (talk) 00:09, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It took a little looking through the revision history to tell what was going on, but I'm convinced that the original article ( which has been restored ) was good, and certainly not subject to speedy-anything. It's essentially a super-disambiguation page that briefly covers usage of "output" among various disciplines. The page it was replaced with was a pretty trivial dab page. The present version, which merges the two, should stand. And it should remain "output", not "output (dab)". BTW, I don't understand the talk about not being able to restore the material, was there more? Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, there was no more. My apologies for not being clear, the phrase "not allow" was possibly too strong. My first restore of the article following the speedy was reverted. Since I did not wish to edit war, but I did wish for the issue to be debated, I brought it here. SpinningSpark 10:45, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This article could use a couple more references, but is very encyclopedic and helpful to include. The procedure followed is less important than getting the outcome right. This is a good article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:59, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Unhappily Ever After. Any appropriate content can be merged at editor discretion into the target article. EdJohnston (talk) 04:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ross Malloy

Ross Malloy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No significant coverage of in reliable secondary sources. Fails WP:FICT. No refs. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 21:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Unhappily Ever After. Any appropriate content can be merged at editor discretion into the target article. EdJohnston (talk) 04:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Malloy

Ryan Malloy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Fails WP:FICT. No refs. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 21:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Unhappily Ever After. Any content of permanent value can be merged at editor discretion into the target article EdJohnston (talk) 04:32, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jennie Malloy

Jennie Malloy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Fails WP:FICT. No refs. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 21:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

background : character in Unhappily Ever After from 1995 to 1998.DGG (talk) 23:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into a character list. This group of deletions is a little weird, because the article for the protagonist in the show Jack Malloy, does not seem to have ever existed. Possibly the eds. interested in this series have been working their way up to him. As for the subject of this article, there is information in the main article about her, but it is insufficient. Information about her role in the plot is relevant, not just the sketch of her character type, which is all that is in the main article now. The Wikipedia coverage of fiction should not be only plot, but it certainly should include plot (the long standing dispute is about how much, but there certainly needs to be some even at the extreme viewpoint--I'd be prepared to say the content should mainly or at least substantially be about plot, the most important element in fiction, but not everyone agrees. ) , and for a series like this, often the best way of doing this briefly is though the characters the show focuses on. But I don't think there's any reason for a separate article. I point out that t he material here is best sourced from the work itself, though some of the generalisations should have a secondary source. A whole group of afds that should not have come here--and this comment goes for the ones above also. I see nobody even started a merge discussion on them, & I further ask the nom why he thinks the articles should not be redirected? There are many good ways of handlignthese articles, but deciding one chracter at a time at afd is not the way to find them. DGG (talk) 23:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree that redirect or merge would be a good solution. I just thought that since there is no clear policy on fictional characters and since the articles were about 6k each, that just redirect without discussion would not go over well. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 01:04, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. EdJohnston (talk) 04:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Judith Dillon

Judith Dillon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unreferenced BLP. Only claim of notability is winning an award from an industry organization. Significance of the award is not established. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 20:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. EdJohnston (talk) 04:39, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Madagascar 3

AfDs for this article:
Madagascar 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:NFF. No significant coverage, no real details, nothing but a "we are making it." Purported release date of 2011!! Way too early for it to have an article. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:50, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- WP:CRYSTAL, WP:NFF, recreation of deleted material. I was about to nominate it. You beat me to it Collectonian!! LeaveSleaves talk 20:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:CRYSTAL.--Regents Park (RegentsPark) 20:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But there is a madagascar 3. It's confirmed! Negabandit86 (talk) 20:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is a Madagascar 3, but only as a gleam in the creators eye! [7]--Regents Park (RegentsPark) 21:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I second that comment. User is banned and disruptive. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. EdJohnston (talk) 04:45, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rotting Flesh (band)

Rotting Flesh (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable band, failed with WP:MUSICBIO. Cannibaloki 20:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy Delete. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 20:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shoven

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

Also AFD'ing per WP:NOTDICDEF. Again, would CSD but I'd rather get consensus. ~Beano~ (talk) (contribs) 19:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Rales . EdJohnston (talk) 04:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Subcrepitant

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

I'm AFD'ing per WP:NOTDICDEF. Would CSD, but I'd much rather get consensus on this. Thanks. ~Beano~ (talk) (contribs) 19:50, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Complete contents: "Subcrepitant is a term used to grossly describe a lung that has been infected with a viral or other obligate intracellular pathogen. This pattern is commonly involved in pneumonitis." If true, this is a medical dictdef. --Lockley (talk) 20:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to rale per Uncle G's comment below. --Lockley (talk) 23:50, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. EdJohnston (talk) 04:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Irrational Number Generator

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

Name of the article does not occur anywhere in the real world (google search, google scholar search, google books search) with that meaning. Notability of the subject not established. Accuracy of the theorem not established. References of the present version are not relevant to the stated theorem, only to Fermat's Last Theorem. There may be other reasons. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Withdrawn now that more content has been added. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 02:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright Already

Alright Already (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Empty dab. The TV series is a red link that is unlikely to ever turn blue (absolutely no sources!), and the Larry Stewart song has been redirected. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 18:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. EdJohnston (talk) 03:58, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hunt's Impact Theorem

Hunt's Impact Theorem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Disputed prod. This theorem doesn't appear to have been published anywhere; multiple searches of Google Scholar failed to find the paper cited, or any other paper by the author. The fact that the page creator's name matches the supposed author's name suggests that this may be original research. Zetawoof(ζ) 18:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:40, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OBD-II PIDs

OBD-II PIDs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No claim to notability. Lacks references. Wikipedia is not a manual WP:NOTMANUAL. Wikipedia articles are not mere collections of public domain or other source material WP:NOTREPOSITORY. Prod removed "This page provides valuable information to an important community. There is no valid reason to delete it." Duffbeerforme (talk) 18:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • All of the data in that page is found in SAE J/1979 and ISO 15051-5. Some of the data may also be taken from SAE J2190, SAE J2205, SAE J1850. I don't know how to add these references into the article. None of the text is a transcription of that standard. The source documents I've cited are not freely available in electronic format, rather they are copyrighted expensive references. If this page can be copied to Wikisource, that's probably very good, because it would be shame to lose one of the internet's best comprehensive sources of OBD-II mode 1 PID information. - 63.107.91.99 (talk) 19:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Duffbeerforme you are mis-using policy. For something to be a manual, it has to be instructional or tutorial. A step-by-step guide to automotive repair, like Automobile Repair, is a manual. A list of diagnostic codes and reference material about their meanings is no more a manual than the periodic table is a manual of chemistry. Similarly, the policy restriction against source material prohibits copies of actual source documents. It doesn't prohibit information because it is otherwise publicly available. Indeed, our Wikipedia:Verifiability policy requires that all information in Wikipedia be otherwise publicly available. Uncle G (talk) 21:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Collections of factual information of this sort are appropriate for an encyclopedia. DGG (talk) 04:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. How is this different from Table_of_LaTeX_symbols, which is snowballing towards deletion? VG ☎ 17:31, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am the same user as 63.107.91.99 above. I concur that this is not a manual (there's no description, for instance, of how to use the results of these PIDs to fix a car. It is not a copy of a source text, so it is not appropriate for inclusion in Wikisource either. I will add references to the article citing the standards the information comes from, but the text is not a copy of anything. - 66.92.73.52 (talk) 17:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is no other SINGLE place for this data I can find on the internet. OBD-II is legislated, so the "publicly available" is probably covered when the electrical code was mandated. There are other SAE specs. The J2534 spec is implemented and there was a court decision (drewtech v. something) that said such was available. And in general, deleting a body of very useful information without replacement when it isn't contested is a bad idea. Censorship - that is what it is = for what reason exactly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tz1 (talk • contribs) 03:07, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep this information. There is no other singular source available, and it is NOT copyrighted material, rather it's public information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.208.159.19 (talk) 18:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Mayhem . Any content of permanent value can be merged at editor discretion to the target article EdJohnston (talk) 05:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pure Fucking Armageddon

Pure Fucking Armageddon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

article on demo without non trivial independent coverage. Duffbeerforme (talk) 17:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy Keep notability demonstrated

Bundelkhand Mukti Morcha

Bundelkhand Mukti Morcha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is related to a number of Bundelkhand-focused articles that were deleted for non-notability. This article is no exception. The so-called "president of the [subject political] party" is cited in this article as running on a ticket for a different party, undercutting both the speculative claims made in the article, and any hope of demonstrating notability.

Ironically, searches for the subject political party reveal that Wikipedia is cited as a reference (or just copied) in would-be news articles from the subject region. Bongomatic 17:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Alexnia (talk) 18:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flanaess

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

No Citations, notability not asserted, written in-universe, referenced by non-third-party books -TinGrin 17:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Legitimate spin-off article of World of Greyhawk. Edward321 (talk) 18:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notable fictional locale. This is a good example of why requiring secondary sources for RPG material is not always appropriate; many of the referenced books and boxes are themselves notable within the context of RPGs. It should not be necessary to corroborate their contents externally in order to show that the fictional elements they promote are potentially notable. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep enough references to show notability. Things are of course notable only within their own context. That something needs out fo context notability is an inherent contradiction. DGG (talk) 04:01, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. EdJohnston (talk) 05:04, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Combat Survival

Combat Survival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Seems to be a collection of (individually notable, perhaps) combat systems and exercises, but without an overall assertion of notability relevant to this entry. Related AfD: Commando krav maga. 9Nak (talk) 17:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Redirect to Krav Maga. AfD is being bombarded with sock !votes; closing a little early as consensus is clearly established when these !votes are discounted. Tan | 39 17:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commando Krav Maga

AfDs for this article:
Commando Krav Maga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Declined re-post CSD. The notable bits are WP:Coatrack and already covered in the main Krav Maga entry. The rest is dubious and cites dubious sources. Related AfD: Moni Aizik. 9Nak (talk) 17:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— Jackal2119 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Please familiarize yourself with wikipedia policy. See WP:NOT RogueNinjatalk 20:49, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

  • KEEP TO Everyone Who Needs Hear Objective Truth, Commando Krav Maga should be kept on the Wikipedia site for the following 2 reasons: 1) It would help bring creditability back to Wikipedia as a source of information considering scandals that the site has had in the last couple years. It would show impartiality instead bending to pressure of one side. 2) Commando Krav Maga is a subject of historical significance, and has helped bring about a change of significance to the Israeli Army, Military and Law enforcement agencies around the world. If Wikipedia is going to be a truly credible source of information then it must have Commando Krav Maga in its pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.244.136.194 (talk) 01:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

You really should read Objectivity (philosophy), then you might realise that objective is the exact opposite of this opinion. Also please don't imply that someone who can't be bothered to create an account and has only edited ONCE, and that not even to contribute to an article, has the best interests of wikipedia at heart. --Nate1481 15:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This was suggested, but opposed by an IP & refused] by Gwen Gale. --Nate1481 13:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
jup and I still want it to be speedy deleted the number of Ips Editing this Afd is getting enormous someone must be using a proxyserver. Alexnia (talk) 14:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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


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

The result was delete. EdJohnston (talk) 05:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Tribute to the Black Emperors

A Tribute to the Black Emperors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unsourced article on bootleg. Duffbeerforme (talk) 17:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unsourced, unimportant bootleg, composed entirely of tracks from earlier albums. ~Asarlaí 17:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. EdJohnston (talk) 05:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beth Rosenberg

Beth Rosenberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No claim of notability. I was unable to find any significant coverage of the subject or books authored by the subject (including reviews). Bongomatic 17:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Of the two links that show up in a google search of "Deus Ex Machina: A Cautionary Tale of the Computer Culture", one is wikipedia and one is her personal website. --Regents Park (RegentsPark) 20:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. EdJohnston (talk) 05:15, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Hawley

Alex Hawley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A baseball player at a Canadian university is not notable.

Weak Keep - CIS baseball is the Canadian equivalent to NCAA, which may meet the WP:ATHLETE "highest level of amateur" criteria. 204.83.242.149 (talk) 11:31, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bah, forgot to login Grandmartin11 (talk) 11:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A good point, and I appreciate the citation to policy. I'd note that the statement regarding "Competitors who have competed at the highest level of amateur sports" is preceded by another section that refers to "Competitors who have competed in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, golf or tennis." By this, I would conclude that WP:ATHLETE does not mean that all college athletes are inherently notable just by having played on a major college team, NCAA Division I or CIS. Strictly speaking, the highest level of amateur baseball competition would be the Olympics, university games, a national college championship, etc. Hawley could potentially be shown to be notable in comparison to other amateur baseball players, but isn't entitled to an article by virtue of playing college baseball. Mandsford (talk) 01:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No Opinion I'm not familiar enough with Canadian baseball to comment... however, I completely disagree with the assertion that "because a professional league exists, the amateur leage is nullified" -- I've put up an essay (relating to college football) at Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Amateur that I think might be worth reading. There is nothing in WP:ATHLETE to say that a professional leaguge negates an amateur league.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:55, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know who made that assertion, but I'll go ahead and join you in disagreeing with whoever said that. You're right, there's no provision in WP:ATHLETE for a professional league to negate an amateur league. If a professional field hockey league were created, the notability standards for college field hockey players would remain the same. What is true is that the Wikipedia guidelines confer the presumption of notability on persons who have "competed in a fully professional league"; as of yet, there is no similar guideline for players in an amateur league. Mandsford (talk) 22:29, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mr.Z-man 17:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Longstanding consensus has held that simple collegiate competition does not itself make the athlete notable — it's definitely not the highest possible level of competition, at least for such a widely-played sport as baseball. Only the awards that he's received, such as the MVP for the league, make this player notable. Nyttend (talk) 21:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on the Nyttend's argument, I'm changing my vote, since there's a showing of notability among other Canadian college baseball players. What's referred to is that Hawley had received an award as the pitcher of the year in the Ontario University Athletics association, which is one of the four regional associations in Canadian Intercollegiate Sports (formerly CIAU). One can point out that the OUA is not as strong a league as, say, the SEC baseball teams in America. I'd look at it as Hawley being selected as one of the four best collegiate pitchers in Canada during at least one season in his career. Mandsford (talk) 00:51, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. EdJohnston (talk) 05:17, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WinDirStat

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

Disputed PROD. Unremarkable software, no assertion of notability. 9Nak (talk) 17:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see why somebody would be against an open source (sourceforge) software which is very useful to the general public! To my understanding this is going to help people free of cost! I thought Wikipedia was known for its "knowledge is free for all" philosophy! Kuser99 (talk) 17:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC) kuser99[reply]

Noone's against open source software - but just because a program's free doesn't automatically make it's notable. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a WWW site for software pointers (see WP:NOT). Try adding references, etc which prove why it's significant enough to be included; see WP:NOTE. Cupids wings (talk) 19:28, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This has already been deleted once as a copyright violation. I agree that it is not notable and should be deleted. Not every single software that is useful to someone in some way should have an article on Wikipedia. It must meet notability guidelines.Theseeker4 (talk) 17:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No independent sources, no assertion or evidence of notability. I'll follow up with the author on policy questions. --Finngall talk 17:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus. After two weeks it's time to shut this one down. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 13:50, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meelad Air

Meelad Air (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Small charter airline. Does not meet the notability standards at Wikipedia:Notability_(Transportation)#Airlines. A7 speedy was reversed, so it's AFD time. TexasAndroid (talk) 21:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mr.Z-man 17:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 20:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Speedy Delete. Fritzpoll (talk) 22:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Asian Educational Media Service

Asian Educational Media Service (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable club at U of Illinois. No third party references outside of homepage. Nothing important about it. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a line 17:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 05:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Killa (film)

Killa (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Failed prod that I tagged for clean up and decided to watch. Another editor tagged it for prod as a hoax. It wasn't eligible since a prod already had been removed, so I brought it here. Fails WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NFF, and given the lack of sources, may be a hoax as well. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 17:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete (G3) by The Anome. Non-admin closure. MuZemike (talk) 17:22, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Giant padded rats

Giant padded rats (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Apparent hoax article, zero Google hits for either article title or purported Latin name. No cites provided. Article is sole contribution of account with similar name, and ends with the words "I like monkeys." The Anome (talk) 16:30, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. — Scientizzle 16:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kii Kitano

Kii Kitano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I declined a speedy delete A7 on this because I think there may be some assertion if notability here. I am not convinced however that it is properly verified and attributed so I bring it here for discussion. JodyB talk 14:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete; Concur as the one who proposed the speedy. There may be some "term of the art" (Japanese modelling?) which implies notabiiity, but I really don't see it. Whatever the claim of notability might be, it's not clear or supported by sources. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I know it lacks sources but I'm sure I could get many. She has appeared in many films, and starred in two dramas, in 2007 and 2008. She has appeared in films as one of the main characters multiple times through out the year. This for a Japanese actress, means she is getting more notable, and now considered one of the now leading young actors and actresses. In October, I believe, she was featured in one of the promotional videos by a music group. Also, she was a model for a magazine, but as she got more famous, she went on with the acting career. Modelling career is notable, but I don't think that's more notable to state than her acting career. If this makes her notable, I'll add sources. --staka (T) 15:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please do provide sources, remembering that not all actresses are notable. Perhaps WP:ENTERTAINER is the relevant notability guideline? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:38, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Does it have to be English sources? I believe most English sources, if any, are just translated and therefore unreliable as to if they are correctly translated. I'll add sources when I get home.. --staka (T) 15:45, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • The guidelines are quite clear that they don't have to be English sources, although I don't have the link at the tip of my fingers. Thanks for asking. If a translation is available, you might point to that, as well, but it's not technically necessary. Only in the case of editors whose translations have previously shown to be questionable, would we demand an independent translation. (I can name one person who is a former ja.wikipedia editor and former en.wikipedia editor who falls into that category, but there may be others.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I added sources.. for most information. I added additional information to the article also, one mentioning about the awards she won by acting in her first starring film, and that's with a source. --staka (T) 22:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Speedy Delete. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 20:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reymies Marmolejos

Reymies Marmolejos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Is a winner of the Chicago Golden Gloves notable? Did this person win that competition? I couldn't find any independent sources that confirmed him as anything other than an amateur boxer, and not many of those. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Computer Aid, Inc.

Computer Aid, Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable company. Only primary references (company-paid listings in various business directories). WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:16, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment 106 hits on Google News. Did the nominator follow WP:BEFORE and make a good faith effort to confirm that no significant coverage of the topic in reliable sources exists? the skomorokh 14:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A "multinational computer technology and consulting corporation" that fits the profile. Much of the coverage in Google News comes out of legal cases that don't involve this business directly: apparently a case involving this company was a lead case for the principle that disclosure of your Social Security number does not constitute a per se violation of your right to privacy. This makes its name will appear in dozens of unrelated opinions. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I ran through some of the archive news sources. There is not a heck of a lot. I wouldn't necessarily categorize them as being litigious. There was one suit in 1996 against HP alleging theft of trade secrets. I couldn't find any resolution. But based on that I am guessing that the case was either settled or at the very least, set no significant legal precedent. Couple of small lists from the Central PA Business Journal. As of 2006, they had a total of 1,300 and made some list of large tech companies in Central PA.[10], so its not a back room shop, but its not IBM either. They get a fair number of local gov't contracts for what I can see but nothing that indicates that they are a notable player in the IT biz. As a side note, this is a potential conflict of interest as well. There is a John A. Russo who is an executive at the firm.[11] which may be the creator User:Russojar. TastyPoutine talk (if you dare) ] 18:01, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. If anyone wants to use the contents for improving a help page, drop by my talk page and I'll restore it into your userspace. — Scientizzle 16:45, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Table of LaTeX symbols

Table of LaTeX symbols (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a manual or 'how to' guide, which wikipedia is not. The information is available to those writing math in articles in the relevant help page. See the talk page for initial discussion. TrulyBlue (talk) 13:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:
Would you please consider moving this page to Help namespace?
  • This is not lshort, because wikipedians can change, if necessary, and contains what it is actually accepted by MediaWiki.
  • This is not m:Help:Displaying a formula, because it does not contain instructions how to edit formulas, and the names are next to the symbols (and not far from them).
  • This is not a manual (because of its size), it is just a reference sheet.
Thank you in advance for your cooperation.
Regards, --Julian (talk) 18:30, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well Julian, m:Help:Displaying a formula both lists and explains syntax for LaTeX symbols and serves excellently both as reference sheet and usage guide. The article you created does not add any additional value to that document. It simply is a re-categorization of the symbols. LeaveSleaves talk 18:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This page presents the information in a different way from m:Help:Displaying a formula. Analogously to what happens with infoboxes, navigation templates, lists, etc. , the reason of this re-organization is to simplify getting the information. There is a very short explanation at the talk page of why I consider useful having a reference sheet. Please, observe that this is not really a re-categorization.
On the other hand, I don't find anything harmful for the project if we keep this page.
Regards, --Julian (talk) 19:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But it is still the same information! It is no addition or modification to it. However, if you think this reference sheet is helpful in relationship with m:Help:Displaying a formula, may I suggest discussing its importance there? Article namespace is hardly an ideal location for lists of this sort. Also, hoping you won't take offense, may I suggest a read of WP:ATA, WP:NOHARM in particular? LeaveSleaves talk 19:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No offense, I think that none of the examples shown in WP:ATA or WP:NOHARM applies to the page, as I explained at the talk page.
I moved the page to Help namespace.
Regards, --Julian (talk) 19:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Help namespace does not work that way. Your page would eventually be deleted there. My suggestion was to discuss the issue on meta instead of here. And my other suggestion regarding WP:ATA was not in relation with the article but your comments above. Please read it carefully. LeaveSleaves talk 19:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thank you for the clarification. No offense, anyway.
I still didn't find any refutation to what I said at the talk page. I'm showing concrete examples there. If we delete this page, it would be more difficult to improve a page at meta or to show arguments for a discussion.
Regards, --Julian (talk) 20:09, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said before, if you see place for improvement in the help document you should discuss this in this project or on meta. Creation this article won't serve that purpose. Plus, this is a discussion on validity of this article and I'd prefer if we stick to that. LeaveSleaves talk 20:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sheikh Muhammad Amin Madni

Sheikh Muhammad Amin Madni (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This bio of a nonnotable religious leader has been tagged as lacking notability and references since April 2008. It appears to be a pet project of one of his followers. If it stays, it needs major clean up and constant patrols. Evb-wiki (talk) 13:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete (G11) by Jimfbleak. Non-admin closure. MuZemike (talk) 08:53, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Generation free

Generation free (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable dict-def. Blowdart | talk 13:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn in view of Eastmain's addition of references to the article that confirm the notability of the subject. Thank you, Eastmain! Ecoleetage (talk) 23:05, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ČD Class 471

ČD Class 471 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I am unable to identify the specific notability of this subject. Ecoleetage (talk) 13:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Sometimes a locomotive or EMU is better known by its marketing name or nickname than by its class designation. There are several references under its alternative name CityElefant [here. In general, though, I think there is usually enough documentation about classes of locomotives, EMUs, DMUs and rail coaches to consider them automatically notable. -- Eastmain (talk) 15:09, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Subject seems to be sufficiently notable to me. Expansion of coverage of subjects in countries where English is not the primary language (and particularly those lesser known areas) seems to me to be a good thing to try for. TWP notified of AfD. Mjroots (talk) 15:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. One of the tremendous benefits of Wikipedia is its coverage of specialist areas such as trains. This article is one of many in the Wiki Trains project, a project which is trying to build up a comprehensive view of the subject, not just in English speaking countries, but elsewhere. Inevitably that means listing lesser known classes alongside the more famous ones. The main problem with this article is not so much notability, but lack of detail and references. However I see it as 'work in progress' as part of the Wiki Trains project. Bermicourt (talk) 22:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I just added an external link to this page. Would this help in saving the article from deletion? You could use it to expand the article, and even add it as a possible reference. ----DanTD (talk) 23:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This nomination has absolutely nothing to do with countering systematic bias. The article makes no assertion of notability for the subject, and I have yet to see any !vote where someone has offered a cogent explanation on why the subject is notable or how it falls in line with WP:N. I have no problems withdrawing a nomination if that is proven, but claiming a non-existent anti-Anglophonic sentiment is bizarre. Ecoleetage (talk) 11:27, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The very first !vote by Eastmain offered a cogent explanation on why the subject is notable and how it falls in line with WP:N by linking to reliable sources. Systemic bias is a completely different concept from anti-Anglophonic sentiment - the meaning of the word "systemic" in that phrase is precisely that the bias is not the result of any sentiment. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:42, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 20:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alucard Music

Alucard Music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability and it seems to be non-notable. Schuym1 (talk) 13:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to List of One Piece characters. Cirt (talk) 08:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Eleven Supernovas

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

Article is a listing of fictional characters by an in-universe criterium. The page is largely redundant to Monkey D. Luffy, Roronoa Zoro, List of One Piece characters, and List of minor One Piece characters. The page is completely unreferenced and provides no explaination as to why the topic is notable on it's own. -- Goodraise (talk) 13:01, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep per WP:SNOW. Non-admin closure. MuZemike (talk) 00:04, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barefoot

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

I stumbled across this article whilst reading the perfectly respectable Elle Bishop article and personally I think the page in question is a useless article of non-notable, fetishist trivia. It should be deleted for its failure to comply with the notability guidelines and the vague creepiness that accompanies it. POV I know but I think a lot of editors will agree with me on the above statement. Maybe I'm a tad prejudice because I hate feet but I really don't think bare feet warrant an article at all. Who agrees? --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 12:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep excellent article, well referenced, notability established the usual way. This is the kind of thing that makes Wikipedia a worthwhile resource, no reason to cut off our nose to spite our face. WilyD 16:33, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion is noted. – How do you turn this on (talk) 18:45, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Stever

Jay Stever (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The claims to notability are "Laureate of International pop music competitions: New Wave 2002, Discovery 2003."

First, these both seem to be non-notable competitions.

Second, his role in "New Wave 2002" is ambiguous. Searching for "Jay Stever" and "Jay Stiver" (both appear) in the domain www.newwavestars.com didn't show any hits that appeared to demonstrate that the subject of this article won any competitions (though he appears to have competed at least once, and possibly been on juries in later years). See http://www.google.com.sg/search?q=stever+site:www.newwavestars.com and http://www.google.com.sg/search?q=stiver+site:www.newwavestars.com.

It does appear that he competed in the latter (see http://www.discoveryfest.com/participiants_eng_2003.htm), but didn't win (see http://www.discoveryfest.com/laureati_2003engl.htm). Bongomatic 07:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. per the sources found by Atmoz (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sideways_bike

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

I created this article over a year ago and since then no developments have occurred relating to the production of the Sideways bike. Therefore I propose that the page be removed until the bike is actually available to the public. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joaquimds (talk • contribs) 2008/11/06 21:47:36

I don't think the fact that it hasn't become commercially available means the article isn't encyclopedic. It is notable as the single documented example of a two-wheel steered bike. If there are others, perhaps this could/should be generalized/renamed to "two-wheel steered bicycle". For anyone turning to wikipedia to learn about bike variations, this is as useful as the Monowheel article. -AndrewDressel (talk) 14:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I added the links that Atmoz provided to the External links section of the article, for the cases where they weren't already there. The article seems exactly like the sort of thing that Wikipedia covers and other websites do not; that no one has taken existing sources and improved the article is a unfortunate, but not a reason to delete it. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Genesis: Apes

Genesis: Apes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Another go-round with those "damn, dirty apes"? A single web site speculating on the possibility of a return to Dr. Zaius and company -- and a second web site quoting the article on the first web site -- doesn't really work here. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kene G

Kene G (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No material claim of notability, COI. Identified months ago. Bongomatic 12:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete per WP:SNOWBALL. Hemlock Martinis (talk) 21:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incremental move towards a North American Union

Incremental move towards a North American Union (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A nice bit of WP:OR. I recommend an incremental move towards deletion. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cook (software)

Cook (software) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Schuym1 (talk) 12:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete, discounting nationally motivated I(DON'T)LIKEIT votes from both sides, delete arguments are clearly predominating among the legitimate policy-based ones. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aramean-Syriac people

Aramean-Syriac people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete under WP:CFORK and WP:NAME, this is a 100% pov-fork residing at a title established as not in use in any WP:RS:

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL, zero hits on either google books or google scholar (one incidential google books hit for "Aramean (Syriac) people").

on equal grounds, {{Syriac ethnicity}} is a content fork of {{Assyrian ethnicity}}, both describing one and the same group of some 4 million people of Syriac Christians. There is a bona fide dispute, covered at Assyrian naming dispute. Proper terminology and issues of WP:NAME are addressed here. There isn't any room for reasonable doubt left that this article is a content-fork or counter-article created at an invalid title. At this point, this is just about some people stalling based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Wikipedia doesn't allow the resolution of disputes by content-forks. Whatever the dispute, it needs to be worked out within the existing article. --dab (𒁳) 12:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

note that the current full protection is the result of a rather surreal action on the part of Akradecki (talk · contribs), who blocked t AramaeanSyriac (talk · contribs) for 3RR violation, and at the same time locked the article in the 3RR-violating user's version. I don't think I have ever seen such an admin action before (details). --dab (𒁳) 12:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I thought I'd add a note of explanation...the two actions, the block and the lock were two separate actions. The 3RR block was because of, well, a 5RR violation. The lock was because another editor was removing all text and replacing it with a redirect, without the benefit of discussion or consensus. As I said at the time, creating a redirect like that, right or wrong, is tantamount to deleting the article, and should be discussed, either on the article's page or here at AfD. I repeatedly asked the various parties in the edit dispute to make change proposals and then discuss them at the talk page, and I got little response. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 19:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • commentWell, your actions ain't better, redirecting an entire article that has been existing for almost a year. Without any sort of consensus for a redirect! The article will be moved, but not to Assyrian people, I've urged before and I'll do it again, for a move to Syriac people. Also the dispute is covered at Names of Syriac Christians, way to go to choose side by calling it the "Assyrian naming dispute". The TriZ (talk) 12:45, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll take that as a "keep" vote (but this isn't a vote). Note that the pov-fork was first created by an anon in January, immediately reverted as a CFORK even then. The fact that we have allowed this to go on for the best part of a year is a disgrace, not a recommendation of those re-instating the pov-fork in the face of patient explanations why this isn't permissible. --dab (𒁳) 12:50, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Fails WP:CFORK and WP:NAME for the reasons given. Verbal chat 12:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it's clear that this is a fork with a title that doesn't match reality/sources. dougweller (talk) 13:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CFORK and WP:NAME Blueboar (talk) 14:16, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this article is a joke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.33.121.197 (talk) 15:28, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this POV fork. Whatever the puerile flamers will say to the contrary. This goes against basic style and content guidelines. Moreschi (talk) 20:25, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the relevant part of the nomination. Article was created by Pylambert in February 2006, as a redirect. An anonymous user turned it into a relatively large article in a single edit in January 2008. This was quickly reverted by Chaldean with edit comment "rv WP:POVFORK". In February/March the (presumably) same anonymous user re-reverted, resulting in an edit war mostly between Chaldean and VegardNorman (an account that had been created between the two anonymous edits). It's not entirely clear to me whether this article is about the exact same (ethnic) group that is discussed under Assyrian people, or whether it is supposed to be about a (religious) subgroup. (See talk page discussions until about 27 March.) But since the religious group is hard to distinguish from the ethnic group, not least because both are part of the same huge self-designation conflict discussed in Names of Syriac Christians, I would count this as a content fork in both cases. --Hans Adler (talk) 20:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I'm citing the opening phrase in the ethnicity article, "An ethnic group is a group of human beings whose members identify with each other, usually on the basis of preferential endogamy and/or a presumed or real common ancestry." Now clearly there is a relativetly large group (as large as the Assyrian or more likely bigger) whom rejects the Assyrian name and they are identifying with eachother and the Syriac name. Yes, the name of the article is made up, since the real articles name should be "Syriac people", so do a search on Syriacs and you'll see that you will get more hits than you do with "Assyrian people". The TriZ (talk) 22:14, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The people who have created this page are simply radical propagandists who want to distort history to fit thier own so-called nationalistic agendas.130.17.92.11 (talk) 21:01, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have no intention of judging what is the true name or nature of an ethnic group, and neither should Wikipedia. For what appears to be the same group, different parts of it describe and name it different ways, its good reason to have two articles. In a practical sense, its the way of settling the continuing conflict about what to call it. Sometimes a fork makes sense, Even if necessary to appeal to IAR, this is an illustration of why an absolute rule against forking does not help the encyclopedia. DGG (talk) 04:32, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest possible keep, and block of nominating editor for disruption of our project - Notable and sourced. Badagnani (talk) 20:59, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article is very biased, inaccurate, and often contraditory. Levi Seigel (talk) 21:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Funny you haven't made any edits in a halfyear and less than 15 total edits (which included this one [18], pointing to the fact that you call yourself Assyrian), and then suddenly shows up here, makes one believe you have more than one account. The TriZ (talk) 02:26, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fran Moore

Fran Moore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Procedural nomination, was previously proposed for deletion by myself with the rationale "Has only made appearances in a semi-professional league, and therefore fails WP:ATHLETE". The PROD has been contested on the basis of him playing in the UEFA Cup - unfortunately, the source supplied requires a ten Euro subscription to view it and I can't find any other sources to verify this. Bettia (rawr!) 12:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy Delete per WP:A7 by Fuhghettaboutit. Non-admin closure. DARTH PANDAduel 21:17, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PuguaSoft

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

Non-notable software house and their project (for which a prod has been contested). Tikiwont (talk) 10:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JiraBuddy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
As for the JiraBuddy software, which seems to be nominated as well, delete. No sources in the article, and the name clashes with some iPhone app, so I can't find any either. VG ☎ 02:31, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the user name that created these two articles Cndiaz, and the owner of this company, Chris Diaz, seem to share the last name. VG ☎ 04:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Mollmann

Steve Mollmann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:BIO, WP:CREATIVE. No significant coverage to be found, and his works so far are not significant either. No reliable references anywhere, tagged for notability since one year. AmaltheaTalk 10:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to History of Celtic F.C.. MBisanz talk 20:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Polar Bear Trophy (football)

Polar Bear Trophy (football) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A piece of memorabilia granted by one football team to another in order to commemorate the occurrence of a match which itself isn't notable enough for an article. As well as, I argue, falling short of the barrier for notability, the single fan site from which this article is sourced is probably not enough to count as verifiable.

See Also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Real Madrid Silver Cabin

Pretty Green (talk) 10:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did consider that, but the advice said "unless you're sure that the two should be bundled, then don't". I wasn't sure if the Real Madrid trophy may be considered of a different level of notabilty due to the higher profile of the teams; I though linking the two was the safest way forward. Pretty Green (talk) 15:33, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to History of Celtic F.C.. merge per growing consensus, including those who indicated delete. Content is there. StarM 23:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Real Madrid Silver Cabin

Real Madrid Silver Cabin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A piece of memorabilia granted by one football team to another in order to commemorate the occurrence of a match which itself isn't notable enough for an article. As well as, I argue, falling short of the barrier for notability, the single fan site from which this article is sourced is probably not enough to count as verifiable.

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polar Bear Trophy (football)

Pretty Green (talk) 10:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 20:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of oldest Catholic bishops

List of oldest Catholic bishops (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Deletion proposed because "Age is not a defining or important characteristic of a bishop, and bishops don't get any additional attention for being one of the fifty or so oldest bishops currently. Fails WP:NOTE as a separate subject." ProD contested because "actually, sicne they do have to become inactive after a certain age, the concept is notable--see the talk page." The talk page contains nothing related to this, and the other argument is not really convincing either. Bishop (Catholic Church) contains no information on any age requirements, indicating that this is not really one of the most important aspects of bishops. Furthermore, this argument may justify a list of retired bishops, but not a list of oldest bishops. Once you are retired, it does not matter if you are 81 or 94 years old. The concept that Bishop X is one of the oldest living bishops is not one that has received any significant attention in reliable sources. Fram (talk) 10:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. All bishops, of whatever major Christian denomination, are per se notable. Bearian (talk) 19:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep per WP:SNOW. (non-administrative closure) — RyanCross (talk) 08:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of OHA Junior A standings

List of OHA Junior A standings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

ProD contested because "season articles are notable". However, this is the list of results for a regional, junior league, not a national senior league. While an article on this league is viable, a list of its results fails WP:NOTE and WP:NOT. Fram (talk) 10:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think it does pass WP:NOTE as results have been covered readily in newspapers. That said, the OHA and related articles are not complete. There is work to do and the current state of things does not make clear the notablity of the league. The OHA itself, while a contributor of national champions in the past, (amateur championships in general are less well-covered in newspapers) is not as relevant as it once was. Champions of this league could readily contest national championships. Much less so nowadays. So we should not compare it's relevance like it used to be. The OHA Junior A is the equivalent of today's Ontario Hockey League of the Canadian Hockey League, so it supports historical information on the topic. So, to sum up, the league was very relevant and notable, dating back to the earliest days of ice hockey, and less so today and the OHA collection of articles needs work, but keep the article. Alaney2k (talk) 19:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But they were a junior league, right? Anyway, results for very local competitions in many sports are often printed in newspapers, without us repeating (or wanting to repeat) these statistics. In our sports coverage, usually only results from (top levels) of senior leagues are given. Fram (talk) 20:30, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The OHA Jr. 'A' was reported, although not in detail, outside of Ontario in newspapers. The level of detail varied; usually just the scores. The Globe and Mail, printed across Canada in several locations, included the Ontario Jr. scores as well as those of the Junior A of the other major leagues at the time. Junior hockey has always been popular in Canada. There is a different Junior A nowadays, the Jr A in the article we are discussing was the top level in Canada (along with Quebec and Western leagues). Junior A nowadays is a lower level. Junior A became 'Major Junior'. It is confusing, partly because the junior hockey ranks was very contested. The Junior A teams until 1966 were sponsored by National Hockey League teams and afterwards the Junior A teams were the ones that received transfer monies from the NHL. So the leagues would fight over that pie with others and try to make their league look like the top. It has become easier to define nowadays; the Canadian Hockey League is clearly the top level. Similarly for the senior ranks; there have been many leagues with various misleading names, e.g. Major League of Hockey. The article we are discussing is clearly within the top amateur level at the time, WP:ATHLETE although it was junior age. The top level of senior hockey in Canada exists, and existed then, but it is clearly not as good in quality as Juniors in Canada. It died in relevance and funding with the rise of televised sports. Alaney2k (talk) 21:16, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is indeed very confusing :-) I'll let some other people comment as well, I am not a specialist in Canadian Hockey so it's hard for me to judge. It seems bizarre that a regional junior level would be (among) the top national level anyway, but stranger things have happened. If a few other people agree that this competition is (or was) indeed a lot more important than a cursory glance would indicate, I'll be happy to withdraw this nomination. Fram (talk) 21:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can vouch for Alaney2k's argument. I can also see your thinking in this matter, as "junior" tends to scream limited notability, but junior hockey in Canada has been huge for decades. Scores and standings, at the very least, of the top leagues are printed in major newspapers across the country, even outside of each league's region. This has been true for decades. I've been researching newspapers from the 1920s for the Calgary Tigers article, and even back then, the progression of many junior leagues, including the OHA, was reported on, particularily as the season wound towards the Memorial Cup playdowns, Canada's national junior championship, for which the OHA competed. Resolute 05:51, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep OHA is notable and a list of its seasons are notable. DMighton (talk) 05:38, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - In previous discussions about other league individual seasons, consensus seemed to point to either delete the individual seasons, or merge into a list article. This article is a listing which would make more since for this type content. I would think that it is reasonable to have one article listing all of the seasons for the league. It is much better than separate articles for individual seasons.-Pparazorback (talk) 05:39, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I can understand the nominator's thought process, but this is a complimentary list pertaining to the history of the Ontario Hockey League and its predecessors. It certainly can use more context, but is valid. Resolute 05:51, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While I understand the noms rational, unfortunately there is a lack of knowledge on the subject which causes confusion. The article could probably be better written but it was one of the highest level leagues in the world at its time. I would also suggest a WP:SNOW but didn't want to close it as such as I am a hockey editor mainly so possibly biased. -Djsasso (talk) 14:34, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Could use some expansion, but it is notable and this one article replaces the need for 41 season articles. – Nurmsook! talk... 20:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Closed as moot. Page has been entirely rewritten as a disambiguation page. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 23:13, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Antimaterialism

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

Sounds like something somebody made up one day in response to materialism. Unreferenced, possible neologism, not much more than a dictdef, POV, original research, and even manages to contradict itself by the final sentence. Closedmouth (talk) 09:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as disambiguation page.--Grahame (talk) 02:20, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. Non-admin closure. DARTH PANDAduel 01:34, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grand prix d'horologie

Grand prix d'horologie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is the type of subject for which I would expect plenty of information to be available on the web if it was notable, but Google finds next to nothing: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. The article creator seems to be using Wikipedia as a WP:SOAPBOX. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I am aware of print sources for this - there's a discussion of Swiss mechanical watches and their competitions in a book I've read called A Revolution in Time - but this definitely seems to be a soapbox, and borderline attack page, albeit not directed against a named individual. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Delete It seemed obvious that a major promotion would be found in Google and so the title must have been misspelt. And so it proved. I have moved the article to the correct title and cleaned up the POV prose. The old title/redirect should be deleted as an error. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I wasn't sure about this one when I saw it proposed for deletion, but I accept Col. Warden's argument. Its a major industry award. sure, its influenced by commercial considerations. A great deal of he world is, but we dotn exclude things fro mwp on that basis. we are more than an encyclopedia of the non-profits.
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nomination withdrawn per Col. Warden's discovery. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:07, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ned Ryun

Ned Ryun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No claim of notability, nor evidence.

Specifically, none of the claims in the article (even if demonstrated to be correct) seem to meet WP:BIO (for example, there is no claim satisfying WP:POLITICIAN or WP:CREATIVE). With respect to being a speechwriter for Bush, in addition to the above point that this isn't a claim of political notability, it also is not a claim to notability based on closeness--see WP:BIO#Invalid criteria.

Additionally, the article des the organization that the subject is associated with does not demonstrate notability of that organization (stay tuned for tags and/or AfDs or speedys there).

Bongomatic 09:01, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. StarM 23:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kelvyn Alp

Kelvyn Alp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable, page is mostly contradictory nonsense Nzv8fan (talk) 08:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete. wikipedia is not an open door. plan 8 (talk) 06:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Someone else can figure out what to do with the template. Not sure article being deleted is grouds for it being deleted. StarM 23:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disturbed Picture

Disturbed Picture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable musician. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. McWomble (talk) 08:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. StarM 23:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shadows Of: The Darkness

Shadows Of: The Darkness (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Purported future album with no reliable sources. Fails WP:NALBUMS and WP:CRYSTAL. McWomble (talk) 08:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy deleted as recreation of very-recently deleted article. - Richard Cavell (talk) 10:45, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kerem Mete Ozmen

Kerem Mete Ozmen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Speedy declined. (As yet) non-notable Turkish footballer. No references or sources provided to back up claims. Unable to find anything to confirm notability CultureDrone (talk) 08:14, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Limited participation, but this could have been an A7 if movies were eligible. StarM 23:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Skipper souly

Skipper souly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable film. Only 4 Ghits, 2 of which are the production company. Fails WP:MOVIE. McWomble (talk) 08:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. StarM 23:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vengeful spirit

Vengeful spirit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Could not find a suitable CSD. Apparently nn-notable thing of DotA. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 07:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Alexnia (talk) 18:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

B.P. Newman

B.P. Newman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is basically a glorified obituary for a recently deceased man. The article's assertion of notability seems, essentially, to be that the subject was a distributor for a dairy and franchisee of several fast food outlets. Subject seems to have been an upstanding citizen, but I'm not quite sure the he meets the notability requirements. Bellhalla (talk) 06:33, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New information has been added that may address your concern about "notability".Billy Hathorn (talk) 20:23, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. StarM 23:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pingg

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

An editor tried to speedy this as spam and I'm not sure why it didn't get deleted. The few reviews cited are miniscule and although the article says the site was launced in 2006, this article says the site was launched just recently last February. It is a nonnotable website that recieves little attention on google news. Themfromspace (talk) 06:09, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Upper Murray Football League. Nom withdrawn, content under the merge. StarM 22:34, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Corryong Football Club

Corryong Football Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unsourced and doesn't go into great detail about the clubs notability and it's history other then rivalry with another club. Bidgee (talk) 04:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Upper Murray Football League. Content is under the re-direct StarM 22:34, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cudgewa Football Club

Cudgewa Football Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No sources and nothing describing it's notability. Bidgee (talk) 04:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Upper Murray Football League. nom withdrawn, content under the re-direct StarM 22:34, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Federal Football Club

Federal Football Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No source proving it's notability which makes it hard to see if it's infact fact. Bidgee (talk) 04:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to Upper Murray Football League. Nom withdrawn, supports the m/r, content under the merge for whoever wants to do it. StarM 22:33, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tumbarumba Football Club

Tumbarumba Football Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unsourced, doesn't state why the club is notable. Bidgee (talk) 04:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Upper Murray Football League. Content under the re-direct if someone wants to merge the text. StarM 22:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bullioh Football Club

Bullioh Football Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Finishing unfinished nom for Epistemos Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 04:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another non-notable footy club, unreferenced and hardly well-written (Epistemos (talk) 04:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Upper Murray Football League. Content under the re-direct if someone wants to merge the text. StarM 22:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Border-Walwa Football Club

Border-Walwa Football Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Finishing nom for Epistemos. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 04:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another non-notable footy club, unreferenced and hardly well-written (Epistemos (talk) 04:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]

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

The result was Keep. Rewritten article address primary deletion concerns. Eluchil404 (talk) 09:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of most popular cat names (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article contains WP:OR and indeed contains an instruction/request that people continue to add OR to the list. It would be possible to source a list of popular pet names - and I did it when the article was prodded, see previous revisions - but original author reverted to the OR-format AND removed the prod without addressing the issue. So, here we are at AfD. MadScot (talk) 03:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete obviously, as nominator. I don't believe article as written should be here at all, and I doubt that even a sourced version purged of the OR is actually encyclopedic either. MadScot (talk) 03:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why do so many nominators feel that a "delete as nominator" is necessary? Just curious. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 04:33, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I've seen some noms not actually !vote for delete, which is a bit bizarre, but it's perhaps best that the nom at least make their stance clear, and this seems one way to do it. MadScot (talk) 05:05, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Under what CSD Criteria could you speedy delete this? --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 14:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Problem I see with the idea of reverting to the sourced version is, as has been pointed out since I did it, it's actually a copyvio. I can't see how one could source a list without it being a copyvio of the source, since it's practically impossible to rewrite a list to eliminate the copyvio problem. That's why I abandoned the idea of trying to get the article into shape. MadScot (talk) 10:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That version is not a copyvio, but a limited quote of the source (only a selection of the information in the source is presented here), with a proper reference. --17:03, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep/merge Now that the article has been rewritten from some good sources, it is worth keeping. I favour changing the scope to cover pet names in general since there seems to be a significant overlap between cats and dogs, for example. But that's not a matter of deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:00, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong Keep somewhat to my amazement. People seem to care about this sort of thing, as the sources show, and that's notability--at least over a period of time. I shoulnt reaqlly be all that surprised, considering that there are 148 books on cat names in worldCat [21] That's going by actual subject as cataloged, not merely title. So much for preconceptions. DGG (talk) 03:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Horseland (TV Series). MBisanz talk 20:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Horseland (TV series)

Horseland (TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article is superfluous given Horseland (TV Series) (which itself should be moved to the title in question because of that capital "S"). I don't think there is much if anything to merge, it appears to be a copy of the character list of the other page Synchronism (talk) 03:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I did it backwards. Sorry.Synchronism (talk) 04:40, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. StarM 23:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kathleen McDonough

Kathleen McDonough (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Self-promotional article on small businessperson/arts patron lacking evidence of notability from third-party sources. Author/apparent subject declined prod in early August and wikified, but resume-like tone and lack of independent sourcing persist. Google search on "Kathleen McDonough" turned up several different people with same name, none with sources satisfying WP:N. Google News came up completely empty. Rklear (talk) 03:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was A9 by Esanchez7587, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 04:12, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse Psychology (album)

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

Non-notable album. Only source is the artist's Imeem page. —Kww(talk) 03:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep - there is no point continuing this AfD. - Richard Cavell (talk) 10:30, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alabama State Fairgrounds

Alabama State Fairgrounds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability in a Google search and a Google News search. Schuym1 (talk) 03:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also added a reference for the fact that the Fairgrounds were used to imprison arrested civil rights demonstrators. -- Eastmain (talk) 03:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete (G12) not once, but twice by Cenarium and NawlinWiki, respectively. Non-admin closure. MuZemike (talk) 17:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pacific Biosciences

Pacific Biosciences (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Company's main product already covered by unassessed article Single Molecule Real Time Sequencing which it is a smaller but substantial reiteration of; notability is one concern Article is also an unreferenced orphan requiring cleanup. Synchronism (talk) 03:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Melia Nymph (talk) 03:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep as I don't see how this company is non-notable. Also, if the technology the company has pioneered is worthy of it's own article, why isn't the company itself? I'm still trying to decide if I'm a deletionist or inclusionist, but will lean inclusionistically until I can figure out which I am, hence this position. If you expound upon your nom with respect to notability, I may reconsider, though, since I tend to lean deletionistically when it comes to notability. (Did I just invent some words? :P) ~Pip2andahalf 04:08, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the company is more notable. Really it's the chicken or the egg. But it seems to me that the sequencing method, at least for now, is more notable than its developers (who I suspect are not its only users), and that both can be covered by one article- in this case simply the larger one. A new PB could still be made, of course, I'd hope it is not simply another verbatim copy[22] of Single Molecule Real Time Sequencing.Synchronism (talk) 04:33, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, good point. I like the chicken or the egg analogy for this. I see what you're saying regarding the technology vs the company, and I think I'll change my vote, especially if the only substantial content that the company's article could gain would be redundant[23] in the Single Molecule Real Time Sequencing article, as you linked.
  • Speedy Delete as copyvio of their about page [24] and so marked. When spam like this shows up, its the first thing to check' I'll let another admin confirm and delete this. There might or might not be an article to be written about them, depending upon whether they have a product or are merely planning to have one. The company was in fact founded by Stephen Turner [25] , who was in fact one of the people involved in developing the technology, so it might well be notable. I havent checked his actual role in the work, though & the site does not claim him to be the inventor. The sequencing method is very notable, butt hat doesn't carry over to everyone involved with it. DGG (talk) 05:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete (G12) per DGG. Copy-and-paste from the abovementioned web page, which is blatant copyright infringement. MuZemike (talk) 08:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cher Doll Records

Cher Doll Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:CORP - An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. Article was PROD November 2, 2008. PROD seconded November 7, 2008. PROD removed because "Neutral Milk Hotel is notable, and this is their first record; article should stay" (Article is not on this band or the bands album, it is on a small record label) Soundvisions1 (talk) 02:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Melia Nymph (talk) 03:01, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Several notable bands (with Wikipedia entries) had their first or other early records on this label; yes, it's a small label but still has a following. Two of the records are still being sold a decade later. The NMH single goes for hundreds of dollars on Ebay. It's a significant label in the history of American indiepop. 216.64.147.98 (talk) 03:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC) Note: this user's first Wikipedia edit was removing the PROD.[reply]

  • Comment: The article is about the label, not the bands on the label. In order to meet guidlines the label must be the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. Articles about artists who mention their label are not "independent secondary sources." Soundvisions1 (talk) 03:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

* tag References needed. (added updated comment at bottom of discussion) ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment It gets my back up with editors say things like "none of these artists are notable", as appeared on the page yesterday. An editor who doesn't think NMH is notable has no business touching articles about indiepop or indie rock at all. There appearss to be an organized campaign to rid Wikipedia of indiepop-related stuff. There is a large and active scene that follows this stuff, and would like to see facts represented in Wikipedia where they can be looked up. Not everything is on the web! This label, and dozens like it, are crucially important to the international indiepop scene. The music released on this label has been reissued on major labels and used in television commercials on major networks. But some little tyrants think Wikipedia is only for stuff that everyone knows already. Mick Jagger was in the Rolling Stones, I hear. \ Fnarf999 \ talk \ contribs \ 17:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is also a misleading statement by Soundvisions1, as, while the articles (not "article") are indeed "about a band", if you read them, they go into some detail about how the artist came to send his stuff to this label. It's absolutely pertinent. Unfortunately, only a tiny fraction of human knowledge is on the web, so I am unable to provide the sort of web links that make editors happy, but I am working on gathering better information. Perhaps editors who have nothing better to do than REMOVE THINGS, as opposed to those who add them, could hold off for just a moment? \ Fnarf999 \ talk \ contribs \ 18:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:This is an AfD for a record label, not about artists and their "notability". Notability discussion of an artist should be done on that artists talk page. Also an AfD is not the place to discuss original synthesis about Wikipedia itself. In regards to the citations posted, the articles were not about the label nor do they go into "some detail" about the label. In the one marked as Jeff Mangum of Neutral Milk Hotel talking about Cher Doll the subject of this AfD is briefy mentioned 5 times - 4 of those times only in relationship to recordings - ""Everything Is" / "Snow Song Pt. 1" on Cher Doll Records is one the few really great singles released in recent years...."; another single "...also on Cher Doll Records"; ""Invent Yourself A Shortcake" on the Champagne Dancing Party EP on Cher Doll"; and "There's one further 7" on Cher Doll featuring Neutral Milk Hotel..." The other mention in the article is "I ended up sending a tape to Nancy at Cher Doll Records and she saved me merely by saying she wanted to do a single." This is not "significant coverage" of Cher Doll Records. In the citation marked as History of Neutral Milk Hotel describing Cher Doll Records (This citaion is a "Neutral Milk Hotel Biography") there is one paragraph that mentions Cher Doll, this is the entire paragraph: "After high school, Mangum moved from Ruston and traveled to Austin, Texas; Denver, Colorado; Chicago, Illinois; and New York City picking up temporary band members, playing, and recording music. Neutral Milk Hotel's first single, "Everything Is/Snow Song" was released by Seattle's Cher Doll Records in 1994. Nancy Ostrander, owner of Cher Doll, found Mangum's music intriguing. Cost conveyed Ostrander's attraction for Mangum's music, "It was fuzzy and happy and catchier than heck. I like music that is actual songs--the shorter the better--and he got bonus points for 'Snow Song' sounding like the Jesus and Mary Chain." The band was featured on two compilations that were also released by Cher Doll: Amazing Phantom Third Channel, in 1994 and Champagne Dancing Party,in 1995." The other mentions are in a listing of releases. The General notability guideline defines the terms used in Notability (organizations and companies) and other subject specific guidlines. Soundvisions1 (talk) 19:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete lacks coverage in multiple independant reliable sources. claims in See Also section of article are not true. Links are not about Cher Doll. coverage there is only trivial. Blogs are not reliable sources. Duffbeerforme (talk) 19:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: What you are saying is true of EVERY indie label. Fine, delete the fucking thing. You're damaging Wikipedia's value to people seeking information. Absolutely insufferable. I'm done with this fucking site; I've never had a contact with it that didn't immediately run into brain-dead ACCOUNTANTS prattling on about stuff they have no understanding of. As a result, Wikipedia collects more and more information from its increasingly shitty "sources", because those sources are the ones that idiot editors like you consider "reliable" even when they are filled with errors. I am a good editor, but you have no use for good editors, only ROBOTIC ACCOUNTANTS. Fuck you. \ Fnarf999 \ talk \ contribs \ 00:37, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The external links given in the article are either not reliable or give trivial mention to the label. The only real claim to notability is that it gave Neutral Milk Hotel its start, however even if this is so the label might be worth mentioning on NMH's article. That doesn't mean that this label inherits notability on its own. Also, to those who say to simply expand references, good luck with that. Google News has only a passing mention in one article, and a more general Google search turns up nothing, it's not like there seems to be anything to add. -- Atamachat 04:19, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per citations in comment above by Soundvisions1. These are enough to merit an article. Some people will want to find this information[26] and we should provide it. Ty 04:47, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I am not sure I follow Ty at all. The citations are not from me, they are currently attached to the article as citations to establish notability for the company. As they are articles on the band Neutral Milk Hotel and can be added to that article (if they are not already) the information will still be available. An article should not be kept, or created, based on trivial mentions of a subject appearing in published sources. Per WP:GNG "'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive." To further clarify there is a footnote attached that reads "Examples: The 360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on IBM are plainly non-trivial. The one sentence mention by Walker of the band Three Blind Mice in a biography of Bill Clinton (Martin Walker (January 6, 1992). "Tough love child of Kennedy", The Guardian. ) is plainly trivial." Soundvisions1 (talk) 06:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have given examples of where the label is mentioned and you do not consider these to be sufficient to justify an article on the label. My judgement is that these do allow it to scrape the bar. My rationale is that although the mentions are not extensive, they bestow significance. The question is whether wikipedia is a better or worse reference work for inclusion of an article on this label. I consider it will be a better one with it. All other considerations are subservient to this prime consideration. Ty 17:01, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Ty, you either didn't look over this discussion well or chose to ignore part of the discussionm if you say there's no "discussion based on policy". I clearly discussed WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:N. Reliable sources are lacking (and can't be found) which leads to a failure of verifiability, and aside from all of that this subject isn't notable. Your reason for keeping this article is that people have read it, but there is no policy that backs up that reason. -- Atamachat 16:40, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was meaning to refer to SoundVision1's nom reason and subsequent development of that. However, I acknowledge one policy has been raised, WP:V. However, you have misrepresented my statement which was keep "per citations in comment above by Soundvisions1", which I consider establish a place "worthy of note", albeit minor, in the history of music. I consider the fact that the article is attracting readers is something that should be borne in mind. There seems to be an increasing tendency to act by rules and excise anything else on wikipedia nowadays... I also think we need in our assessment to compensate for the fact that this label was in operation before the web was widespread in the way that it is now. Ty 05:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are jumping to conclusions, which are quite erroneous. The subject is aware of the article and debate, and has, commendably, taken no part in either. She is not in any way "overseeing the article", nor has anything in the article been altered or added on the basis of contact with her. As you state "This is a blatant vio of the Wikipedia:No original research policy", could you please substantiate your accusation and indicate which content in the article you are referring to. Otherwise, you might like to retract it. It is perfectly legitimate to engage in communication with an article subject. She has indicated that there are some errors, and some of these are in sources. This is a useful lead, and can be followed up. She may also be able to provide additional sources, including print material that is not available on the web. None of this constitutes "violations of Policy". I suggest you strike through your post. Ty 05:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Amendment to the above. There has been one minor change stimulated by the contact with the label owner, namely the statement that the record by Blanket was a 7" one. The latter detail has been removed.[27] However, it wasn't even in the source in the first place, so far from adding WP:OR, the WP:OR has been removed. Furthermore, this fidelity to the source was stated in the edit summary: "changed to make more aligned with sources statement per Nancy's comment". Ty 05:43, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Let it be known that perceived BLP violations have nothing to do with this; whether or not someone wants an article on Wikipedia, they have no say (COI and all that crap); if they're notable, article stays. Luckily for Ms. Whitehead, she's not notable per our guidelines (no sources aside from a 404 link and some reality TV site), so I chose to delete this. Also, consensus here seems to be delete. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 23:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cassandra Whitehead

AfDs for this article:
Cassandra Whitehead (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Extremely borderline notability [28] and subject has blanked the page so would prefer it gone. Unlike what is said to her on her user talkpage, User_talk:Cassandrajean, yes we can delete a very borderline BLP if people are unhappy about it. I'd say this person is not notable anyway, she's been discussed in such sources as "Denver Post" and "Reality TV world" but nothing more mainstream or national has considered her worth discussing. Sticky Parkin 02:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's been a thread on AN/I about her unhappiness Wikipedia:ANI#User:Cassandrajean_at_Cassandra_Whitehead._Urgent_BLP_issue. Sticky Parkin 02:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then again they may not, much. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment She seems perfectly notable, but if she doesn't want an article she shouldn't have to deal with having one (no celebrity should as far as I'm concerned. If this is the case then my vote is delete. Melia Nymph (talk) 02:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Reality TV contestant has tantrum, leaves show, does bit parts. Notability is where? ThuranX (talk) 03:08, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as detailed in the previous AfD's this subject meets notability requirements. I appreciate that some think that notability is borderline but then so are the bio's of so many of these 15 minute TV "stars" and "wannabes". For my money there is enough to keep her here because she has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. As you all know we do not censor material but we do make it accurate (or as accurate as possible) and towards that end the editor who says she is the subject can assist - however entertaining a third request for deletion because someone who says they are subject and has blanked the page is not a good enough reason IMO to delete.--VS talk 03:33, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Subject wants it gone, and this is not really a key part of the encyclopedia. WP:BIO#Entertainers is a high standard to meet, so there is a case for deletion on regular notability grounds. It is not sufficient just to have press coverage. I encourage the editors voting 'Keep' to state which of these three criteria she satisfies:
  • Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions.
  • Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.
  • Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.
EdJohnston (talk) 03:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter how many times people have mentioned her on their livejournal or blogger blog etc, not many national papers or anything have mentioned her as far as I know, and only a few minor WP:RS have. I can only find 3940 google hits, and that's not even unique ones, which people usually prefer, so I don't know what you're doing differently, did you remember to put the two words together in quotes? I use google news as it shows WP:RS, and like I said there are seven local or gosspy internet ones, I mean I don't know what "reality TV world" is, but I can imagine. Sticky Parkin 04:08, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If she was notable during the show, she's notable afterwards. Personally i think this sort of reality is best ignored altogether, so I'm not !voting. DGG (talk) 04:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Google search does give a different result if you use double quotes. There are only 3,770 hits for the double-quoted string "Cassandra Whitehead". The #1 hit for her name is her Wikipedia article. EdJohnston (talk) 04:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete marginal notability at best and subject appears to want it gone. RMHED (talk) 04:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I couldn't care less whether she wants it gone or not, but she just doesn't seem particularly notable. Celarnor Talk to me 04:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deleted discussions. ApprenticeFan (talk) 06:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE: This debate has been included in the list of living people-related deleted discussions. ApprenticeFan (talk) 06:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a reality television contestant who did not win, has not used her reality TV stint to springboard a career, and whose main claim to fame is leaving the show of her own free will, which isn't that much of a claim to fame. All of the sources are directly related to her reality TV appearance, or generated because of the same. Outside of the show, the other 'claims to fame' given in the article don't pass the notability inclusion bar for me. Winning in a handful of city-wide beauty contests or placing in a handful of region/state-wide contests isn't that big a thing. Her profile at IMDB leads me to believe that her non-reality TV appearances are all minor roles (i.e. credited for single episode appearances as "Bikini Contestant" or "Murder Victim #1"). Failing deletion, redirect or recreate as redirect to America's Next Top Model, Cycle 5, the season of the show she participated in. -- saberwyn
  • Keep This is starting to become a very bad precedent. It really doesn't matter a bit what she thinks of her article. The question is whether we have articles about people that are notable for being reality game show contestants. Since the answer seems to be "yes, we do", then the answer is "yes, we have an article about Cassandra Jean/Cassandra Whitehead." —Kww(talk) 12:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think the jury's still out on whether or not BLP subjects can request that their articles be deleted, however, isn't the usual practice for such AFDs to include an OTRS ticket number? If we are going to consider deleting BLPs on the request of their subjects then there needs to be a reliable way for such subjects to identify themselves. Anybody can create an account with the name of a BLP subject and say "I want it gone". --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:38, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep in mind, I don't think BLPs which meet WP:N should be deleted by request of the subject. Since this article doesn't meet Wikipedia:BIO#Entertainers, I think it's ok for her input to tip it over into to deletion. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This has been discussed twice and twice the result has been a keep. Do we even have a confirmation that it's her who blanked the page and not someone else? And to me pageant + ANTM + guests roles + some press about her quitting = notable.--Whadaheck (talk) 14:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete solely on the grounds of notability, not because the subject wants it deleted. Absent any BLP issues whatever happened to "Wikipedia is not censored". ukexpat (talk) 14:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Regardless of the fact that the subject (apparently) wants it deleted, I believe that a whole bunch of very minor notable events does not make her notable. Guest-starring on shows for an episode is not really notable. Quitting on ANTM is not really notable outside of the fanbase. Placing in minor pageants is not really notable. If one of these were a bit more substantial (say, multi-episode arc, or at least placing top 3 on Top Model), then keeping would make sense to me, but as of right now...I don't believe the subject to be notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia page. SKS2K6 (talk) 16:25, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Notability is established as per consensus at previous AfDs. Multiple reliable sources. Deletion per the request of the subject is not reasonable in this context because a) she arguably is a willing public figure and b) we don't have direct evidence or confirmation that I am aware of that this is in fact the article subject (we've had cases before where trolls have pretended to be article subjects and tried to get articles deleted) c) her primary reason for desiring deletion was " I have emailed Wiki about fixing there errors and deleting the page. Please keep it deleted until it can be resolved, as the information is false." She doesn't object to having an article. She objects to an inaccurate one. The proper approach to that is correcting the article. In fact, it appears that editors are working on that right now. Deleting it is thus not a productive response. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:28, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Should this discussion would speedy close? Here's the result:
Delete: 10 Keep: 5 121.96.101.100 (talk) 20:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No. It should go for the full five days like everything else. 10-5 is hardly a strong consensus for deletion. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "Reality TV contestant has tantrum, leaves show, does bit parts. Notability is where?" Notability is in the various sources, whether those on the article, those on the Google News search (for example, the Dallas newspaper article), and others that can be found on a simple Google search. So what if she fails the entertainers criteria? One can be notable simply by receiving plenty of coverage, which she has. Failing the entertainers criteria doesn't automatically make someone nonnotable: after all, Mike Veon is plainly notable, even though he obviously doesn't pass the entertainers criteria. Simple answer: she receives enough sources to be notable, and blanking by user claiming to be her (whether or not user is telling the truth) doesn't count toward deletion. Nyttend (talk) 21:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the above. Couldn't have said it better myself.--Siemgi (talk) 21:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - do we really need another example of someone who ends up voicing their frustrations to the media about a BLP? If she can be engaged on making it accurate, keep. But her most recent blanking seems to indicate that she's given up on out of frustration with prolonged Wikiprocess. arimareiji (talk) 22:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If the subject of a BLP is a victim of crime, a child, or if it can be shown that the article is causing damage to them, or if it is impossible to write the article in a neutral manner, I would agree: delete always. In other cases where the subject requests it (ie: for convenience or personal preference only), we should take it to AFD to demonstrate good faith, but with a deaf ear and judge the article solely on the content and our own guidelines. In this particular circumstance, the article should be judged with a deaf ear as no claim of damage or victimization is claimed or demonstrated. Based on the content of the article, quality and quantity of sources, and the guidelines on notablity the article should be kept. Enforce WP:BLP in the strictest manner for contentious content, but keep. There appears to be no victims in this case, unless we make Wikipedia an "opt out" encyclopedia. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 01:16, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per Dennis Brown and per the WP:ANI discussion - the subject blanks the page because it contains "false" information -- if it does, they should tell us on the talk page what's wrong with it. The subject seems perfectly notable to me - multiple TV show personality and beauty pageant winner. -¤Belinrahs talk/contribs¤
  • Sigh. Delete per nomination. X MarX the Spot (talk) 03:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable, borderline notability at most. Subject's preference does not need to be considered. Looking through List of America's Next Top Model contestants, most blue-linked individuals are top-3 finishers. Of the rest, Isis King has the most independent coverage, others are shaky, and a few are already at AfD. Flatscan (talk) 05:01, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Public figures do not and should not ever have the right to dictate if Wikipedia may write about them - so long as what is written is properly sourced and not defamatory or otherwise damaging to the subject. Proposed deletion has the potential to set a very bad precedent. What's next? Deleting George W Bush because someone on his staff doesn't like the tone or content of the WP article and repeatedly blanks it? --Gene_poole (talk) 08:08, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There's a very big difference in notability between the two individuals. You're comparing a President of the United States with a contestant on a reality show that has 4 million viewers in the United States. It's like comparing Elton John with a losing contestant on American Idol/Pop Idol/X-Factor/etc.. There's a very clear difference in terms of notability and visibility. Regardless of whether or not she wants the article to be deleted, Wikipedia policies regarding inclusion must be looked at first. SKS2K6 (talk) 08:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: 15 Keep: 10
Polls are evil, Polling discourages consensus. 121.96.114.195 (talk) 20:42, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
100 poorly argued keeps don't matter if just 1 well argued delete exists, e.g. pointing out that the article fails Wikipedia:BIO#Entertainers. -- Jeandré, 2008-11-11t11:32z
Comment Remember that, if we keep this and she complains to the media, the office could theoretically take care of things if they really saw it as superdamaging. This isn't the place to consider public relations issues: we determine whether the article fits notability, NPOV, and other standards. Nyttend (talk) 14:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your logic that we shouldn't be debating PR here. And if Wikipedia keeps moving toward being an "opt out" encyclopedia, I am not sure everyone will see Wikipedia as "uncensored" or "neutral". DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 17:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. StarM 23:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saleem Sinai

Saleem Sinai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This fictional character stub is for the central character of what is clearly a notable book. However, it makes no claims of, or references supporting, independent notability, such as significant coverage in any sources. Moreover, as detailed below, it fails all the various actual and proposed criteria for inclusion as an element of fiction per policies and what must be described as a very inclusionist essay.

According to the notability criteria for books, "while a book may be notable, it is not normally advisable to have a separate article on a character … from the book". Exceptions exist where the subject character is independently notable, or where relevant information on the character is too long to include in the main article. This logic specifically (and rightly) makes character stubs subject to deletion if they do not argue for the existence of significance or an onslaught of additional information. Furthermore, it makes inapposite reasoning by analogy to other characters having dedicated articles that meet either of those criteria.

These arguments are detailed further in the essay on notability of fiction. While not policy, this essay has some commonsense amplifications on the above policy which are probative in this case. Under the heading of "Elements of fiction", it notes that "characters … are presumed to be notable if there is significant coverage of [them] in reliable secondary sources, [such as] secondary-source analysis of the main work of fiction, citing the importance of the element to the work. Reputable academic studies of individual elements may also demonstrate notability." While some of these may be true of the subject article, such factors have not actually been asserted.

Further, the essay points out that "even where an element or group of elements is notable, it may be more appropriate to include the information in an article on the work itself if the resulting article would be very short, with little or no likelihood of expansion." No liklelihood has been asserted or demonstrated for the subject article. (This may be contrasted with articles on characters such as Yossarian, Tom Sawyer, etc.) The essay provides advice applicable to this sort of situation, suggesting that, where the subject would not provide an article of sufficient length, or is of "unproven notability, editors should seek to retain the information where it can improve the encyclopedia … [such as in] the main article on the work of fiction."

Any material information should be placed in the main article where people may expect to find it, and this stub, adding no value to the interested reader, should be deleted. Bongomatic (talk) 02:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Conditional Delete If I !vote delete, do you promise not to write an essay for a rationale ever again? ;) I agree with your rationale, that the character has no established notability outside the work, nor have they entered "popular culture" the way Tom Sawyer has. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 02:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you'll have to change your vote to "Keep", as I know that even if I enter the twelve-step program for recovering over-rationalizing-essayists, I will relapse. Bongomatic (talk) 02:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You can't do that. You can withdraw, and my current !vote wouldn't prevent that in good faith, and I wouldn't complain. I still say merge/redirect for now. If tomorrow/next week/next year, there is enough, then fine. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 02:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm not an expert on the rules, but this is the main character in a Booker prizing winning novel that has led a rennaisance in English language fiction from the Indian subcontinent. This is also the main character from the most highly acclaimed of Nobel Prize winning author Salman Rushdie's books. He's a fascinating character and I think he deserves his own article. I believe he's notable and can be compared to other lead characters such as John Galt or Pip who I suspect have their own articles. I suggest some references be found and perhaps a citations needed tag be added to the article page until that can be done? This is one of the most discussed and written about books of our times. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you expand the article to include the evidence of notability you suggests exists, I will do a non-admin speedy keep close of this AfD. But Wikipedia articles don't satisfy the notability requirement based on what might be true. Bongomatic (talk) 02:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I noticed that the character's description in the main article has an expand tag, and the current character article is little more than a stub. The one or two extra sentences in the character article would be better off in the main article. If the character article (this afd) had substantial content or could demonstrate that it *can* be expanded, it might be a little easier to understand why it needs a separate article. As it is now, this article provides less context than the main article, and actually diminishes the understanding of the character. Whatever the policies, this doesn't improve Wikipedia. Changing this article to a redirect and merge in the couple of extra sentences would be a better solution, although you don't need an AFD to do that. In short, it would be better (in my opinion) to change this to a redirect to the main article, then merge any extra info. When and if the character information is big enough to warrant an article, then change the redirect to an article. It isn't about "deserve", it is about providing the best contexts for the content, which is within the article at this time. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 02:25, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added some citations (some are better than others I'll admit) and content. This is a definite keep. One of the great characters in modern fiction. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is saying that information on the character is not appropriate for WP, simply that given (a) the fact that most people will look for information on a character in a book under the book's article; and (b) there is no reason to think that there is a need for an article of such great length that the information cannot comfortably be fit into the book's article. It simply isn't a discussion about whether this is a central character in an important book (which I don't think is the subject of dispute). Bongomatic 03:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The short version: It would be best to put more character info into the book article, and change the character article (this one) into a redirect for now. Once there is enough information about the charcter to make a full article, then it is just moved over. This is standard procedure. It is actually better for the articles, as it provides better context for the character and the book. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 03:09, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Character is VERY notable and has had an enormous amount written about him. It was a snap to find legitimate sources. I'll work on the article (and the section in the parent text. Respectfully ask for a thie AfD to be withdrawn or a move to keep. Saleem deserves his own article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
However notable the character, and however much has been written about him, a two paragraph article about the character is better suited for inclusion in the main article. Expanding the article with plot summaries and other redundant or extraneous information (as has been done in a number of other principal character articles) will moot the argument for inclusion in the main article, but will ill-serve the reader. If you believe that a lengthy article on this subject is in fact warranted, then I suggest you write it. If you finish before this AfD discussion is complete, I'm sure the conclusion will be to your satisfaction. If not, recreate the article when it is complete and (if it's a good article that demonstrates the notability of the subject and is too long for inclusion in the main article), it is unlikely to be re-subjected to the AfD process. Bongomatic 04:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like the goalposts are moving on me. I was asked to establish notability. I did so with an AP story and a Library link to numerous stories including several that are focused on this character. There are lots of character studies on Saleem Sinai. There are lots of studies and articles comparing him to the lead characters in other masterworks. This book is a classic and it's going to be around for a long time. I'm sorry to be a stick in the mud, but I think there is notability and interest to support an article on the character himself, the lead character in the most famous Indian novel of all times. If the votes are there to support a deletion, then I certainly respect that decision. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I undertstand the confusion. For myself, I shouldn't have said delete to start with (was too hasty), as the norm is never to delete and instead to merge and redirect if the notability or expansion is limited. My rationale is that the main article itself is already tagged as needing expansion of the character section. It is just my opinion that in these cases that you should combine them, focus on developing the character info *in* the article, and if it gets "informative" enough, fine, create the article. What drives my opinion on this is the idea that if someone searches for "Saleem Sinai" right now, would they be better served by going to this article, or going to the subsection of the main article? At this time, I think it is clear that the article provides much more context. My original point still stands, that if the character was like Tom Sawyer, I could easily see how the article could be expanded, as the character is bigger than the book and has entered popular culture in many ways. Expansion possibilities aren't obvious here, so letting it develop with no prejudice to move back over the redirect seems to be the best for both the character and wikipedia. imo. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 11:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that the original nomination stated "Further, the essay points out that 'even where an element or group of elements is notable, it may be more appropriate to include the information in an article on the work itself if the resulting article would be very short, with little or no likelihood of expansion.' No liklelihood has been asserted or demonstrated for the subject article." Bongomatic 04:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly. Central character of very famous novel. 419 gbooks hits; 348 gscholar hits including Saleem Sinai: The Twentieth Century Tristam Shandy!? ; 140 gnews hits including One more bouquet for Saleem Sinai. Scope for a great deal of expansion based on such sources. And ChildofMidnight has very substantially expanded it based on such sources. John Z (talk) 09:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep anti-fictionalism run amok. This is the central character of one of the most famous books of the 20th century--a book with not just literary, but political significance. There's an large and accumulating amount of criticism on the novel , of which a good deal is on the character, both in itself, as compared to other of Rushdie's characters, and as relevant to the author himself--and the article shows it. One good thing about this nomination--perhaps it will make it plain where the tendency is going. The need to adjust the wording of policy to reality should now be evident: Wikipedia coverage of notable fiction should be based upon thorough coverage of plot, characters, publication and reception, in that order of importance. As for some minor objections, the character certainly has entered world wide popular culture--it doesn't have to do so to such as an extent as Tom Sawyer, which has over a century of lead time; unless we are to have a very small encyclopedia, notable is a much wider concept than 'famous". And the reason for separate articles for at least the most important characters of the most important fiction, is to make sure that key aspects are not "overlooked" and deleted under the pretext of editing. (It shouldn't have to be necessary to have that reason, but anyone who has been following these discussions knows very well that it is necessary--trace any of the merge closures which have been implemented as redirects; let's be realistic for once. Probably we do have to change the wording of some guidelines to match that reality.) DGG (talk) 06:32, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep now after excellent save The more I look into this, the more notable it does become, in all honesty. ChildofMidnight has done a great job, and in this case, enough to pass WP:HEY. In general, I lean slightly against articles on fictional characters unless the notability is clear established, but I don't think this is a bad thing, nor do I think it is against the current guidelines. Before his efforts, I would still have said merge and redirect. As it is now, KEEP is the only solution. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 19:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. StarM 23:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MyDJSpace

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

Fairly new MySpace knockoff with no sources/notability. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 02:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Result was Nomination Withdrawn Non admin closure. Jclemens (talk) 03:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Dillahunty

Matt Dillahunty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Apparently non-notable local access cable television host. Jclemens (talk) 02:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. StarM 23:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AutoTestFlash

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

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Schuym1 (talk) 01:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. StarM 23:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jacoline B. Loewen

Jacoline B. Loewen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Most of the source are internal links. Not sure what the actual claim of notability is. Looks much like a resume/vanity but not as obvious as most. Source issues, but still not notable even if it is all true. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 01:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems legit, I think that this article needs to be seriously reworked. Melia Nymph (talk) 02:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it may be legit (as in it may be accurate and not written as spam), but what is "notable"? That is what I couldn't figure out, and no real claim is made that I can see. That is the issue. I could live with fixing the bad links and helping sourcing it myself if someone can explain what criteria this meets. How does she qualify for inclusion? DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 02:16, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is that she's not sufficiently notable per our guidelines. The BBC article verifies her existence, but not that she's notable StarM 23:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stefanie Wilson

Stefanie Wilson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
  • My concern with the Sun wasn't the quality of the source as much as the encyclopedic value of what it was sourcing. The language stuff was removed simply for being unsourced, and it wasn't necessary to establish who she was (ie: BLP issues on unsourced info that isn't very informative) DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 03:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be clear, I won't interfere with you adding back the source. I would strongly request you don't revert back the "it has been rumoured" sections simply because this *is* a BLP, and using the Sun for neutral sources is probably ok, but not really for anything nonneutral. With all the stuff going on in BLP lately, I would rather be a little conservative as long as it doesn't diminish the understanding of who the person is. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 03:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One reference? If you think it's a keep you need to find more. Is every reality show contestant going to have their own page in an encyclopedia? ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:01, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Consensus to delete is clear. The existence of a similar list in Wikipedia space is irrelevent since NPOV is not an issue there. Eluchil404 (talk) 08:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Place names considered unusual

AfDs for this article:
Place names considered unusual (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Seems like synthesis to me. What defines an unusual place name? Frankly, I think that this is original research and probably very hard to fix. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 01:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This is too vague of a criteria and can never be globalized. Considered unusual by Americans? Africans? Brits? Aussies? Yes, it is sourced (more sources than actual article) but that doesn't fix the premise. It has to be OR in the sense that the "by who" is in the eye of the beholder. Words mean different things to different people in different areas. As an example: In North Carolina, "shagging" is a type of dance they do to beach music. In the UK, well, it ain't dancing. We both speak English. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 01:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Classic example of what Wikipedia is not. Entirely based on a singular point of view which cannot be made neutral, factual, or objective. RayAYang (talk) 02:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. A much more comprehensive listing is available at Wikipedia:Unusual_Articles#Places.Synchronism (talk) 05:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)Synchronism (talk) 05:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nomination doesn't mention neutrality as an issue and the suggestion that there is a POV problem seems far-fetched as the article contains numerous sources which separately and independently confirm that we have a genuine topic. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is well-sourced and does not seem to be OR. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Question What about the issue of neutrality, or the inability to ever globalize the article due to the vague and poorly named subject? That these issues weren't raised by the nom is meaningless, according to WP:AFD, as they were legitimately raised in the discussion. Sources alone don't fix neutrality, as it is easy to write a one sided article and source it quite well. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 00:03, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The neutrality of this article is a non-existent issue. The notability and verifiability of the subject have been established. Unless you're going to begin questioning the neutrality and/or reliability of the cited sources I can't see that there's really anything else left to discuss. We don't delete articles about political parties or world leaders because they cite biased party political sources - and this instance is one step further removed even than that, as none of the cited sources in this article are primary sources. --Gene_poole (talk) 04:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you looked at the sources? Most failed wp:rs, book sales sites, etc. The Amish Country News? (Amish publish websites?) And to establish "what is unusual", that is a globalization and nuetrality issue, as I have already explained way above. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 12:40, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As a matter of fact I have looked at the sources - which include the BBC, The University of Calgary Press and an official publication of the US Antarctic Program. The Amish Country News has been published quarterly for nearly 20 years and has an annual circulation of 500,000. Perhaps you should try looking at the sources a little more closely. --Gene_poole (talk) 15:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "What is unusual" is "what a cited RS says is unusual". It may be subjective, but WP's rules are about WP editors being subjective or making judgements or analysis (or selective quoting and similar "only part of the story" bias). WP:NPOV specifically does appear to promote inclusion of "X says Y about Z" or "Z is Y[cite X]" content. DMacks (talk) 06:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Reference to "reliable sources" as a justification is focusing entirely on the name of the publishers and not at all on the type of material. The BBC page is comments from the equivalent of a blog. The Irish page is from a travel site. The U. Calgary page is an ad for a (one presumes) reasonably scholarly book on name origins, but it is, after all, ad copy. The U. Kentucky one is at least entirely on the subject, but again, the work in question seems to be a piece for amusement. That's really the basic issue here: none of the works in question is trying to produce an authoritative list of such names, but most instead are presuming interest in the names and talking about why they got them. Maryland has its share of amusing placenames too: my favorite is Boring, Maryland, where I took a picture of my wife standing in front of the sign for the Boring United Methodist Church. Presumably I might be able to hunt around and find a book or webpage on that, and add Maryland to the list. And that's really the biggest problem: the article is using the existence of the books and pages as evidence for claims about the relative peculiarity of the names in different places. That's not only WP:OR, it's an invalid method. This article is trying to construct something out of a bunch of works which, it seems to me, consider themselves to be collections of trivia. Mangoe (talk) 11:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, plus a clear violation of WP:NPOV. Any place name can be considered unusual by some person or another, and just because an article is written on it in a newspaper doesn't mean a compilation of all these NPOV assertations merits an article. Themfromspace (talk) 09:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not really notable gives only five examples which are probable not unusual to the residents or locals so really is opinion. MilborneOne (talk) 13:18, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. StarM 23:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gustav Efraimsson

Gustav Efraimsson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not notable. Already trimmed blogs, myspace, and dubious claims. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 01:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Withdrawn in good faith. While subject matter is borderline at best, there is a reasonable chance that sources exist and are simply difficult to find. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 18:39, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Subkulture

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

Fails wp:corp. Term gets hits unrelated to this company. Claims to be in biz since 95, yet says it was only a concept in 95. Regardless, not notable. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 01:14, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's hard for me to argue with a reggae great. But I suggest tagging it with references needed. Based on the content of the article I believe it's notable. Around since 1995, international presence. Here's an event http://bandscapes.multiply.com/calendar/item/10391 they put on. But like I said, it needs references. So I think addressing that would be the appropriate Template to do, rather than a straight delete. I really want to give a youtube link to some of your tunes, but I will restrain myself... ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:08, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of links from reliable sources would go a long way in convincing me, much more so than youtube. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 11:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can find no references via the tri-state (ND, MN, SD) libruary book/periodical database, Google comes up with nothing related to this company, only unrelated items. That's enough for me to say 'bye bye' to this article. --Brian(view my history)/(How am I doing?) 15:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am adding this comment that was put on the discussion page unsigned. It clearly indicates a "Keep" vote and that the editor who wrote it is working to address the concerns expressed here and to add references.
"hello everyone,i attached some reputable mainstream publications that have reviewed and covered our events as reference. we couldnt get our hands on old TV archives at the moment in connection to the benefit shows we've pushed to fight against poverty. i will do my best to add more on the references area. thank you for your patience and support sirs.
Retrieved from 'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Subkulture'" Yes, I recognize there may be an issue of conflict of interest. But again, I suggest we focus on educating this editor and the others involved in writing this article instead of straight deleting it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry, I may not have formatted that correctly and clearly. There was a comment on the talk page of this AfD page. So I was just trying 1) move it here 2) indicate the vote the editor was indicating 3) provide the context and explanation for my actions. I'm sorry it wasn't clearer. The second "keep" was theirs. It seems they are having difficulty navigating Wikipedia and posting in the correct place with the correct format. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the rare cases I move a !vote (very rare), I do it with a heading explaining the source of the text, so the admin can give the appropriate weight, in their opinion. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 17:50, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Subkulture is a Philipino record live music event company for goth music. They have an international presence and do shows in Manila, SF and NY. They've been around for years. Here's a website http://www.soundclick.com/bands/default.cfm?bandID=177815 with an article talking about how another band got a big break by being chosen to be part of their international shows. "June 2003 was a break for Sea of Rains as Subkulture Productions decided to include them in their roster of regular bands to play in their events, including Klub Gargoyle (a regular gothic event), Faces of Rock (an event featuring a mix of various rock bands), and Children of Shadows (a mixed dark music event). This gave Sea of Rains the chance to share the stage with the likes of their most respected artists like Dahong Palay, Death by Stereo, and Philippine goth rock icons Dominion.June 28 was the night of the first out-of-town tour for the band: Klub Gargoyle Baguio. Here they played with Dominion and The Late Isabel in a jam-packed Cactus Bar". There is obviously a language barrier gap here, but the editors involved are trying to respond and to address the concerns being discussed. That being said, I see clear evidence of notability and references (albeit not great ones, which is no surprise for a Philipino record label/ production company). ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The best way to convince me is by adding content and sources that pass wp:rs to the actual article that show notability, in this case, under wp:corp. In other words, to change anyone's vote, it is best to do a WP:HEY improvement to the article first, then just tell us to compare diffs to before the AFD. Until it is in black and white, it is theoretical. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 18:25, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A good suggestion. I added an inline citation for the quote I mentioned in my above comment. I also found two articles discussing Subkulture that another editor had already added to the article, but they didn't do it properly so it was invisible. It's still not up to standard, but they look like good references. Have a look. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
um, I removed the one 'imageshack' reference. They can not be used for either a reliable source or even an external link in this case. I wouldn't really call this a WP:HEY job. The last WP:HEY job I did was this one, here are the before and after dif [31]. It was barely enough to be a HEY job, and you can likely see there is a pretty big difference in the quality of sources and info (not quantity, but quality). DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 20:22, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the Frank Hammond article, I didn't see any references to third party media coverage. I also had some issues with the way that article was written, for example the inclusion of linked ISBN numbers, which seems like an attempt to advertise product.
In contrast this article includes references to third party reviews and interviews discussing Subkulture's role in goth shows and Philippino goth music culture. It's a subject I have zero interest in, but other than needing some rewriting, I think the article passes the appropriate requirements for inclusion in this encyclopedia. I would also note that the authors of the Subkulture article have shown an interest in improving it and making it meet the standards, which I think counts for a lot in my book. I'm not sure why you are so adamantly opposed to the article? But I respect your opinion, even as I disagree. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It has multiple reliable sources. It gets 9 hits on Google scholar. There was a University that has it on their "suggested reading" for a course, which is considered ok for WP:RS as they are independent of him and their suggestion implies importance, and it was sourced back to the official university website. The ISBN's don't advertise and can be traced down to libraries in many countries that have the books and are absolutely reliable as they are sourced from the library of congress on down to verify who wrote what. It is hard to get more "reliable" than the ISBN and this is accepted as "not advertising". IMO, this article barely passes, and this guy is a best selling author. I even brought in a professional librarian (with a MLS from Rutgers) who is an admin here, DGG and got his opinion in the matter. This wasn't my article, it was just one I was saving from PROD, only because no one else would. I don't even agree with his religion or philosophy. I still wish I could have gotten more good sources, as the main book was written in 1973, and most stuff published before the web doesn't have reviews on the web, but this was the best I could find over a few hours of researching multiple sources. And the one source doesn't pass wp:rs, but it is there to be informative, not to verify. You might be underestimating the amount of effort I took to save, source, verify and get independent verification of MY verification, to insure that it passed the guidelines, and that I was confident that most editors and admin's would agree with my assessement if it went to AFD. This is what I call a WP:HEY job, and I showed you this one because it is my worst example. Please don't take this the wrong way, but in terms of "quality" of sources, there is no comparison. Of course, you are free to send it to AFD if you disagree. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 00:39, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep hello gentlemen, im sorry for all the hassle, im still trying to find my way around wikipedia. i appreciate your help and concern, i am still trying to gather some mainstream publications that have covered subkulture events, we have a japanese magazine that flew to the philippines to cover our activities and shows, its in japanese though and i can scan the magazine and maybe upload it if that would be of assistance. i will wait for your advise. thank you again. we have requested the tv company to send us a copy of their coverage also but it will look like it is going to be delayed due to the management processes,rest assured i will do my best to provide some proper reference for consideration. again thank you for your time Sirs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Watchtower666 (talk • contribs) 21:33, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update The article has been substantially improved since first being nominated. It has several references and at least one editor is working on getting more. Subject seems to be notable and well established. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry The links mention the company, but there isn't a single source that is independent of them that is talking ABOUT them. WP:CORP kinda insists on more. IE: The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. In short, the article doesn't even make a claim of WHY they are notable, and the sources don't either. In this case, I am 100% convinced you have done the best that can be expected, but in the end, the reason you weren't able to demonstrate notability isn't from a lack of effort, but rather from the fact that the company exists but isn't notable. You tried. It isn't your fault. They exist, they are small, they throw a great party, help record some stuff, but they aren't notable yet. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 00:51, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentThere are actually several sources in the article that cover this promotion company and artistic label. More are promised by the editor who has been helpful and cooperative up to this point. I suggest you take a look at: http://www.darkasia.com/downloads/EDW5_WestCoastReport.pdf one of the references he/she provided. It's substantial independent story on "Subkulture's All Hollows Gothic Ball 5". That's just one example, and it most certainly counts as a valid reference. Again, I'm not sure why you are so adamant this article be deleted. It's about an organization with a 20 year history of substantial events that have recieved independent media coverage. What gives? ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:40, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it your claim that http://www.darkasia.com/ passes WP:RS? What about http://www.soundclick.com ? http://bandscapes.multiply.com? What about http://www.rakista.com ? I am not against the article, it is that I am not convinced that the consensus at Wikipedia would agree that these pass WP:RS, which is required to pass WP:V. Since there is no claim of actual notability, it is also required to establish notablity. They look like great sites, perfectly informative and interesting. Most are very member driven, which is exactly the opposite of WP:RS. To give you another example, http://www.imdb.com is a killer site, I love it, insanely useful, and utterly fails WP:RS. You are free to disagree, it isn't personal at all. I admire the work you have done on the article, but if I waited another day, or another week, or another year, I am confident that the result would be the same. I keep quoting policies because I am getting the sneaky feeling you aren't actually *reading* them, or not reading them objectively. It isn't personal (I actually like the fact that you will fight when you think you are right). It is that I am pretty confident in my interpretations, and I treat all articles the same. I may ask someone I know to look here and give an opinion, just to check my logic. The people I call "friends" here are the kind of people that will tell me that I am wrong if I am wrong. I have no use for people who agree with me just to get along. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 02:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I asked an editor, TenPoundHammer, who is pretty authorative about bands and reliable sources. While this is a corp, I think his perspective would benefit us both. He isn't an admin, but he has more experience than most, and I know he will give an honest opinion, whether or not he agrees with me. He usually will comply with a request like this, although he knows it is ok with me if he decides to bow out. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 02:42, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure another editor's opinion is needed. The article has been substantially improved with references, it's been categorized, and the content has been cleaned up significantly. They've recieved media coverage in established and alternative press and have been around for years. I suggest you click on the "Goth Rock" category at the bottom of Subkulture's page and hunt for a better target for deletion. This is an internationally recognized organization that is clearly notable to the many fans of Philipino Goth Rock. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:49, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind, I am only one opinion. I am not an admin. I am just some guy that took the time to explain in detail, and tried to help establish notability, but couldn't, and cared enough to try to help you understand why I !voted delete. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 02:55, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hello, i've uploaded some links to the Japanese Magazine Burst, who came to manila to cover Subkulture and it's event, also for flying in Japanese gothic legend haruhiko ash and Japanese guitar player Kozi of Malice Mizer band (*another big japanese band) i hope this can help.Thank you again for your time.Watchtower666 (talk)
  • Comment In answer to your question, I don't know anything about http://www.darkasia.com/, but they host a page showing the newspaper coverage of Subkulture from a well established paper serving the Philipino community. The featured article gives expansive coverage to one of Subkulture's events. The other websites aren't the NY Times, but appear to be legitimate Indy Music websites with articles discussing Subkulture in particular. Someone interested in notable Goth bands probably won't go to the NYTimes, but they might go to Rakista.com. My point again is that there are lots of articles that are deletion worthy on Wikipedia and lots of Goth bands and record labels that aren't notable and have no references. This one has referenced sources and deals with a notable subject. I'd prefer to spend my time elsewhere fixing articles or deleting and cleaning up ones that deserve to be deleted. I humbly suggest this AfD be withdrawn. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Among the references, only rakista.com seems legit. I dunno the legitimacy of soundclick, one is a multiply page, another is a file-sharing website, and the other is their own website. If someone finds mainstream citation (Philippine Daily Inquirer, The Philippine Star, Manila Bulletin, etc.), then this can be kept. And I'm referring to extensive coverage, not one-off features. –Howard the Duck 11:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment PinoyToday is an established newspaper for Philipino Americans in the Bay area (circulation of 40,000) and they did a substantial feature on Subkulture and their Halloween event. You admit Rakista is legitimate. There was also an image of coverage Subkulture recieved in Goth Magazine, but it wasn't referenced properly so Watchtower is working on tracking it down. The editor working cooperatively on this article also added coverage from Japan's Burst magazine. He's been very cooperative and is working hard to address any and all concerns. This article is now better referenced than the vast majority of articles on Wikipedia. Please end this AfD so we can all focus on improving articles and weeding out non-notable subjects. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:10, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Based on Howard the Duck's opinion that the one source passes wp:rs, and the bulk of the existing sources, I am giving the benefit of the doubt and withdrawing in good faith, although I still am not fully convinced. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 18:43, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted, CSD G11, could also be G3, hoax. As the admin who first speedy deleted this article after it was tagged by another editor, I'm closing this AfD because the text blatantly spans notions of the Invisible hand into something called Gibsonian Economics, but the latter is wholly unverifiable and hence, this is very likely someone's way of trying to promote either their own original research, or a take on Hume and Smith under another name. Moreover, this AfD is snowballing towards a deletion anyway. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:45, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gibsonian Economics

Gibsonian Economics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not notable. Searching google produces only this article. Article is confusing at best, not notable at least. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 01:12, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand the concept of the Invisible hand but, what "Gibsonian" theory? Whose theory? Who is Gibson? Who has written about this theory? A Google string search for Gibsonian Economics brings back one hit, this article. At most this is original research drawn together with a few citations which have nothing to do with "Gibsonian Economics." Gwen Gale (talk) 11:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. snow is in the air. StarM 22:14, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Skywalkers nightclub

Skywalkers nightclub (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Already mentioned at Grand Class. Synchronism (talk) 00:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 20:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Haugen

Andrea Haugen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unsourced/poorly sourced, possible wp:COI (VRTS ticket # 2008110110022181). Prod removed without adding inline cites to published, reliable, third party sources. -- Jeandré, 2008-11-02t22:00z 22:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Septagram's !vote does count, but only once -not twice. That said, there's overwhelming consensus that the subject is not yet notable. No objection to re-creation once he meets the guidelines. Am happy to userfy the content StarM 23:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry L. Ainsworth

Jerry L. Ainsworth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Per reasons already outlined at its talk page, the article gives a misleading impression that the subject has been notable for the study of Mesoamerican cultures, when all available evidence suggests the opposite. Subject is a self-described independent scholar and author of a self-published book, written on a topic completely unrelated to their field of qualification. Said book promotes theory at the fringes of archaeological research, and despite implications in the article neither the author nor his book have been cited, reviewed or even noticed by archaeologists active in the field. Other than one or two polite book reviews in LDS publications, cannot find evidence that the author or his book have made much of an impact to the development of Book of Mormon apologetics, either. In short, taking away from the article the inaccurate claims to any expertise or significant contributions to archaeological research, there's nothing really left to show why or how he's notable for inclusion in wikipedia. If he can be regarded as a notable figure in LDS circles, then there'd need to be demonstration that he/his work are cited, quoted, discussed, etc by others. I haven't been able to find evidence for this; in archaeology/Mesoamericanist circles he's a definite non-starter. cjllw ʘ TALK 00:40, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No references. Reads like a resume. The article's author or authors need to read up on the proper methods of establishing notability and how to do encyclopedic writing. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:16, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no reliable independent source to establish notability. Fails WP:ACADEMIC.--Boffob (talk) 01:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Google Scholar search as author returned 1 hit, a 1977 publication, and no citations. Google News search retuned zero hits. ASC search returned zero hits. There is a review of his 2000 book on the site of a center for religious studies at BYU [32], and it is not very positive on the scholarly value of the book, which may explain the lack of citations – a quote: “It is unfortunate that Ainsworth pays so little attention to the work done by other LDS researchers.”--Eric Yurken (talk) 01:38, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per the searches done by Eric. Schuym1 (talk) 01:40, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per a detailed nom and the comments of talk above. As far as I can tell, the subject fails both WP:PROF and WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 02:28, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Golly gee folks, I didn't expect such. . . passion when I crated this page. There is very little about Dr. Ainsworth's academic work on the web but positive reviews of his books and theories, but on Wikipedia, all the professionals of Dr. Ainsworth's field have come out in force and incinerated commented on his theories. This is the reason why I believe this article really needs to remain is so novice people in this field (like myself) can find a balanced factual article discussing alternative views of archeology as not to be academically misled. If this subject is too hot for Wikipedia to handle objectively, then there will be gaps(black holes) that people cannot find reliable information about archeology, which kind of negates one of the main strengths of Wikipedia (in depth coverage of a field). Recently, I looked up the Bosnian Pyramids and found that informative when professionals comment on others theories.Again I vote to keep this articleSeptagram (talk) 05:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, the problem is that an author or an artist can self-publish the greatest book in the world. But in order to be notable and to justify inclusion in an encyclopedia it has to generate wider interest. You need references to articles covering this author. The problem isn't that it's too hot, but that it isn't hot enough. Good luck. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Septagram has already voted keep above. Nsk92 (talk) 05:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Septagram's vote doesn't count because s/he is the creator of the article. Schuym1 (talk) 05:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you are completely wrong on this one. Everybody's votes count, including the article's creator. Nsk92 (talk) 06:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that they didn't. Sorry. Schuym1 (talk) 06:17, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Actually, you are bothy wrong because AFD is not a vote; it's a discussion. -- Whpq (talk) 02:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedily deleted, CSD A7, wonderfully done up page though, way to go, Noah. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noah Patton

Noah Patton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable person; speedy tag was deleted by creator   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 00:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to Puffy AmiYumi. MBisanz talk 20:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sunrise (Puffy AmiYumi single)

Sunrise (Puffy AmiYumi single) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Notability concerns - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. PhilKnight (talk) 22:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. His notability does not expire, but there's scant evidence that he ever was notable. StarM 23:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cass Lewart

Cass Lewart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Subject generates no significant hits, his books (mostly textbooks) are all out of print and seem to have made little impact. I can't find a memoir anywhere. In short, this person is not notable. Drmies (talk) 03:39, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to KARR (Knight Rider). Clear emerging consensus. Content under the re-direct for someone to perform the merge. StarM 23:13, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KARR (Knight Rider 2008)

KARR (Knight Rider 2008) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Theres no point in having another article for K.A.R.R. You dont see KITT have another article page because its in a new series. Besides all this information can be merged onto KARR's normal page. RkOrToN 00:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Excluding the sock/meatpuppets and weak "keep" arguements, consensus is to delete. Xclamation point 18:41, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sedna (database)

Sedna (database) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

More than a year after previous AfD, still a marketese article with no notability indicated with reliable published secondary sources. -- Jeandré, 2008-11-02t08:41z 08:41, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm for keeping information about this open source database. I wondered what could be wrong in such information, which rule of Wikipedia might be violated. Maybe advertising? But there are commercial products in Wikipedia, like Microsoft Windows for example or very expensive Visual Studio (and other). Let's be honest... Or maybe this project is too small or insignificant to be listed by Wikipedia? But again, there's an article on JaxB technology, Xalan or XPath... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.225.156.156 (talk) 14:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
— 62.225.156.156 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
— Maximgr (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep - What Wikipedia rule has been violated exactly?, Sedna is a production-ready XML Database with a large user base. As for the article appearing to read as an advertisement what are you supposed to do when describing it other than stating its features, how it works and how it is different from other XML Databases? Sedna is in the top 3 known Open Source XML Databases available, eXist and Berkeley DB XML being the other two, not only is there a large development team continually working on Sedna, there is a community working on various contributions and APIs for it, how anyone could think this open source project is insignificant I don't know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.153.251.65 (talk) 11:08, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
— 82.153.251.65 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep - Sedna is quite well known inside scientific community. There is a bunch of research papers where Sedna was used. For example, for storing molecular pathways (paper), geospatial data ([33] paper), Sedna usage for Grids ([34] paper, [35] another one), musicological analysis ([36] paper), Sedna usage for linguistic corpus ([37] paper). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.149.198.171 (talk) 11:45, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
— 83.149.198.171 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Update: there's a side by side comparison of several native XML databases, including Sedna, written as BSci graduation project (mandatory in Eastern Europe universities); this is actually linked in the article. VG ☎ 03:08, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I am a graduate student who's using Sedna for a Masters Project. Please keep this wiki page on Sedna alive. In fact, more information about Sedna would be useful.

198.185.18.207 (talk) 22:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC) SGS[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SoWhy 14:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Destine

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

Previously deleted in an AfD. Still non-notable. Created by a single purpose account, not viable for speedy because I wasn't sure if the material was identical, however it doesn't make a direct claim to notability. Jimmi Hugh (talk) 14:03, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete. Not a G4 speedy this time because some attempts have been made to assert notability (unlike last time when there was no notability asserted at all). However, out of the four sources, one appears to be a site where people can post their own reviews, and another is from their own website, neither of this counts. This leaves two articles in webzines, one of which is in Dutch. I don't think this is enough. The partnership with BMG may be promising, but we should wait until and if something comes from that, and not before. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 14:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 20:45, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My Little Airport

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

Same/similar concerns as 22 Cats as also expressed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/22 Cats. Notability in doubt in regard to music criteria. — Realist2 15:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With support from Chet Lam to actually hold 2 concerts in Hong Kong Arts Centre, at least it is some non-trivial coverage.
p.s. can this link from Apple Daily help out a bit? --58.152.233.62 (talk) 15:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The link is dead, btw. TheAsianGURU (talk) 23:14, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 13:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harbour Records

Harbour Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Same/similar concerns as 22 Cats as also expressed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/22 Cats. Notability in doubt in regard to music criteria. — Realist2 15:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. StarM 22:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

King Acorn's Secret Service

AfDs for this article:
King Acorn's Secret Service (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This fictional group does not establish notability independent of its series through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement. TTN (talk) 16:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:19, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ArenaTV

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

No third-party references exist in the article to establish notability, and I could find none either. Spam-like. Biruitorul Talk 17:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:19, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Side Productions

A Side Productions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

non-notable music label. I have to admit their website lists an impressive list on notable performers (http://www.asideproductions.com/ ; click "Discography") but in many cases the partnership must be very limited as in most Wikipedia articles don't mention the fact that the said artists are affiliated with this company. Insufficient reliable sources to demonstrate notability. Icewedge (talk) 18:03, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Current article does not establish notability and quite frankly, in my opinion it can be speedy deleted for complete lack of substansive content. _ Mgm|(talk) 20:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is not a music label and the article does not claim it to be, it's a music production and song-writing team. Their credits are indeed impressive in the pop world and quite beyond doubt. Whether that makes this article name what wikipedia calls "notable" I have no idea. 86.44.18.85 (talk) 20:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EXPAND! Needs serious expansion and at least two links that are independent from the company to get my keep vote. Melia Nymph (talk) 02:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your comments on the A Side Productions' article. Being the original author, I fully agree. Tonite I've edited the article and shortly it will be expanded which means adding links and references. Perhaps you might consider removing the template? (As a new Wiki user, I'm not sure how this works... Hope it's ok.)

Thanks Dafos (talk) 22:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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


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

The result was keep. consensus appears to be that it's sourceable (vs. sourced). StarM 22:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Musical

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

Non-notable unreleased album with little media coverage. Fails WP:MUSIC#Albums. Previously deleted via AFD, speedy was declined due to inclusion of sources (the less-than-reliable rap-up.com and djbooth.net). Likelihood of claimed October 2008 release seems rather dubious at this point; album not even listed on Amazon. Any speculation of impending release is surely crystal ballery. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 20:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:19, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sammy Andrews

Sammy Andrews (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

She's done some music promotion and marketing, but no evidence after filtering out false postives) that this Sammy Andrews is notable. One person allegedly recognized her work in a book, but there's no evidence of the criteria for that "award". TravellingCari 20:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. still limited participation, but I'm calling this a 9-day PROD StarM 22:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1 Model Management

1 Model Management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Insufficiently sourced; creator disputed db-corp   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 21:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 20:45, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dede Koswara

Dede Koswara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A previous version of this article Dede (Indonesian) was merged into Epidermodysplasia verruciformis in March of this year. A user has undone the merge with the rationale that Help:Page name and continuing coverage trump concerns over WP:BLP and specifically WP:BLP1E. The only new information I can find is that this man continues to have operations because of the same case study for his illness. As a BLP, there is scant information about his life, and any relevant information was already in the disease article. AniMate 21:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The previous Afd: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dede (Indonesian). AniMate 21:12, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This may no longer be necessary. The user responsible for recreating the article has been indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Muntuwandi. As the majority of the information already exists in the article about the disease, I think at this point a merge wouldn't be too controversial. AniMate 01:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, StarM 22:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


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

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 20:45, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Petras Savickis

Petras Savickis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The only claim to fame is for beating world record by lifting most 16 kg kettlebells in one hour. There are hundreds of world record holders and I don't think they deserve an article. Renata (talk) 23:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - notability isn't about imposing our value judgement as to who should be notable, it's about who has actually been noted. This guy has been noted by independent, reliable sources and is thus notable by the usual standard. WilyD 14:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Funny thing is that I cannot confirm the record with nay agency that would register such a thing. It was only advertised in local media. Renata (talk) 16:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Let's not suggest that Lithuanian media is somehow inferior to American media. Local vs nonlocal media is not a meaningful distinction (and as far as I know, all media should be expected to be local, nonlocal effects cannot transmit information. ;) WilyD 18:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Expand with what? Where are your sources? ChildofMidnight (talk) 09:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirected by me. The author of this page obviously did not realise that an article already exists on the same topic. - Richard Cavell (talk) 10:40, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Henry Rifle

Martin Henry Rifle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

duplicate of Martini-Henry HLGallon (talk) 23:59, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2008_November_7&oldid=251272197"