Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 November 13

< November 12	November 14 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Delete --JForget 22:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pirate Radio (radio show)

Entire article fails WP:Verifiability (possibly a WP:HOAX). Main section of article is an unsourced WP:BLP accusation against people named in the article as staff. No evidence the alleged "show" even existed on the radio, let alone has been used elsewhere or meets WP:Notability. It contains provably false claims of legal facts that affect Wikipedia itself. In short: once WP:V, WP:BLP, and WP:COPYVIO violations are removed, article has no content at all, and there is no reason to believe it ever will have. Closeapple (talk) 23:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the lists of Radio-related deletions and Tennessee-related deletions.

Delete and salt. Unsalvageable in the first place, and aggressively subjected to "avoidant vandalism" (removing and moving of maintenance templates) and WP:Gaming the system when salvaging (in vain) is attempted. So:
1. Fails WP:Verifiability: I tried looking. The article has not even one source that this program existed as an actual radio program. There's not even decent proof the radio stations themselves exist. I've tried looking for it; I found some mention that Trevecca Nazarene University owned an unlicensed station somewhere, but that was it. There are vague claims like "according to the FCC" and "The Tennessean covered this scandal extensively"; there's no evidence either of those are true. (When I tried to clarify the stations, it was reverted.)
2. The entire description of the program is a violation of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons: it accuses at least 8 named, living people of regularly slandering others, "reportedly" committing federal crimes by participating in broadcasts outside an FCC license, and generating 78 complaint to the FCC. (Attempts to remove this have been repeatedly reverted, despite WP:BLP policy to remove slander immediately.)
3. It contains links to works which are clearly within their copyright term, and also contains the "20th Century Fox Fanfare", which is clarly copyrighted, all with no sources, no provenance, and no license, just a claim of "fair use" with no fair use rationale provided. (Attempts to remove the most blatant example, the one with the Fanfare, have been reverted.)
4. It contains clearly false claims of fact: that works become public domain simply through lack of enforcement. This not only affects this article, but misleads readers about facts relating to Wikipedia's own basic copyright guidelines. (Attempts to remove this have been reverted.)
5. This article has lasted 2 years; in that time, editors who pay enough attention to this article to aggressively re-insert Wikipedia violations have not been able to provide any sources for anything, even WP:BLP claims, even when it's clear that uncited facts are going to be removed. If this article was going to have reliable sources (or any sources), it would have by now.
I made the mistake of trying to clean it up first instead of going straight for AfD. Article history and Talk:Pirate Radio (radio show) show how that went. (See Article discussion at time of AfD and in case someome tries to "refactor" their comments during AfD.) See also User talk:AmAB at time of AfD and User talk:Closeapple at time of AfD. Not sure if the editors involved have a conflict of interest or what, but a couple of them sure have been aggressive about making sure nobody even sees maintenance templates at the top of the article and that show clips stay linked. --Closeapple (talk) 23:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: After seeing comments below — including one of the named, living people in the article saying he is being slandered again even after he removed the slander — it is clear that the authors of this article have been engaging in these violations persistently over the long term, so they will most likely just try to recreate the article with some excuse then introduce violations again later. Therefore, I've added "and salt", so that administrators don't have to go through what I had to. (On another note: The "fair use" claims for those clips were only mentioned in comments when I tried to delete them. The editors have made no attempt to justify fair use in the article; they rely on re-introducing provably false claims of public domain instead.) --Closeapple (talk) 05:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with Closeapple 100%. Great analysis of this article by the way. I tried looking up this particular station and frequency in that area and got nothing. I couldn't even find a site (other than Wikipedia) that hosts the image provided. It clearly fails WP:N, especially after not getting a single hit. ~Beano~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Closeapple's analysis. After some preliminary searches, I couldn't verify anything about the radio station. LinguistAtLarge 00:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete. I have never eidted on wikipedia before, but I've been a reader for years now, so my opinion my not matter as much as eveyone else's. The article really does have problems and probably should be vigorously edited including may sections deleted, but I was able to find evidence of both the channels listed by googling the frequencies plus (+) nashville. I also found other sites refering to the show by googling, but you're right beano, no image hosting other than wikipedia. My guess is that it has been edited by people involved with the show, but that doe not make it un-notable. But I'm new, so I understand if what I think is not as important.Hashmark (talk) 10:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Well, the way to go about establishing the subject's notability would be to add good references for the content already tehre or to add new content with good references. As this article seems to be reaching a consensus for delete, I suggest you wait until it's gone and write a new article on the subject, if you think it's notable and interesting. You can certainly copy and save any information from the present article that you think is useful. Or you're more than welcome to fix what's there and ask people to reconsider. Welcome to Wikipedia! And you may want to consider using the more standard formatting of saying Keep instead of Do not Delete, but that's just a standards issue and no big deal. Take care. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:58, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply I don't know enough about the topic to feel comfortable touching the article. I dont know if it meets wikipedia's standards for notability or not, but it does look like it did exist and even if just some of the information is true i think it's interesting. But I don't know how to fix all the problems that are there. I mean, it's obvious it needs help and should be worked on by someone, but it doesn't make sense to me to delete it completely, just the parts that are not verifiable. But I can't do it, I'm a reader not a writer. Sorry about putting do not delete instead of Keep. Thank you ChildofMidnight though for your warm welcome and kindness.Hashmark (talk) 01:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt lacks 3rd party references, it's been tagged with this and additional problems for over a year. If reliable sources haven't surfaced by now, they aren't going to. The controversy Closeapple (thanks for the detailed info) references leads me to believe that this article needs to be salted as well.--Rtphokie (talk) 15:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE Delete I was sent a copy of this trash a couple of years ago. My name is Travis Young and I was on the show pirate radio myself. At least 75% of what is in the article is untrue and slanderous. I tried to remove slanderous references to my name a long time ago [[1]] and [[2]] but it looks like other people keep putting them back in. PLEASE get rid of this article! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Traviswiki (talk • contribs) 01:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourceable and unremarkable, although I don't see a reason to salt as it has never been deleted before. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 15:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 14:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of schedules for drugs and poisons

...and this is why we have categories. This isn't an article, and can never be in its current format - which is an internal link farm. This is begging to be a category - ~~let's put it out of its misery and Categorify it (if there is such a word)~~ - see my further comment below. Grutness...wha? 23:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Urge caution - you may well be right but as the author I just though I would tell you how this list came about. I spend most of my time on disambiguation pages and came across one for schedule 1 (or maybe 2 or soemthing similar). In the course of looking into this it became obvious that schedule 1 drugs is a term used all over the world but with different meanings in different countries; many links were to the wrong country's code. This applied to schedule 2 and 3 etc. I decided that the best way round this was to have a central point where general links would arrive and the reader would simply select the country they wanted. I presume you have noticed how many articles link to this page ... and how many of these links are via schedule 1 schedule 2 ... etc. I have no emotional attachment to this page but would simply like to feel that the effects of its disposal/replacement had been considered thoroughly. You seem to know more about categories than I do so I certainly will not fight what you decide. Abtract (talk) 23:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- OK - that makes sense. I'm quite happy for this to be kept if others agree that it seems sensible, but I'm not quite convinced enough to withdraw this nomination - consider it a very weak delete only from me now. Looks likely it will be kept, given the other comments on this page, and I'm certainly not going to complain if it is. Grutness...wha? 09:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on Abtract's explanation. This is a disambiguation page so that different countries drug schedules can be kept seperate in a clear manner. Edward321 (talk) 00:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Abstract's explanation sounds quite reasonable. LinguistAtLarge 00:27, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - categories and lists cannot duplicate each others functions. Viable, encyclopaedic list. Wily D 00:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The page could certainly use fleshing out - but the concept is valid, as per Abtract. --moof (talk) 00:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Thought - Could this be merged with the disambiguation page? The muffin is not subtle (talk) 20:58, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Question - Which dab page? Abtract (talk) 21:09, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I thought from your original defense of the article that there was a dab page for Schedule 1. Seeing as there isn't one though, maybe this could be made into one? (I'm new here so extra apologies if this is ridiculous) The muffin is not subtle (talk) 21:59, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would make a lot of sense - converting this into separate dab pages for Schedule 1, 2, and 3 etc. Grutness...wha? 03:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly it doesn't make sense. The current situation brings everyone who wants schedule 1,2,3 etc to this page for onward transmission to a country-oriented article that will help them. Individual dab pages for each schedule would all look much the same as this page and would all need maintaining separately; what's the point of that? Just to be clear, this page was created by combining the separate dab pages. Abtract (talk) 08:52, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe make it in to a category then? I just think it looks very untidy as it is, and it doesn't seem to conform to WPs usual layout. Or even make it in to a consolidated dab instead of just a list page. The muffin is not subtle (talk) 21:04, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As Panyd's adopter, and a sysop, I think something needs to be done about this page. Whatever it should be, it shouldn't be how it is at the moment - it doesn't conform to the Manual of Style, and perhaps a series of Disambig pages, or a complex(ish) DAB page, would be best. At the very least, it's not an article and it never can be - so it shouldn't be classed as one.Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have converted it to a set index article which may, or may not, help. Just for interest what does "Panyd's adopter" mean? Abtract (talk) 00:37, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:ADOPT. Panyd is a new user whom I am 'adopting' to show her the ropes. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 03:21, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Abtract's explanation makes sense. It is a useful page and directs readers right where they want to go. --Andrew Kelly (talk) 00:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Camp Rock (soundtrack). MBisanz ^talk 13:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Play My Music

This is a page about a song that was given a digital release on iTunes, and not released as a full "single". It sold a lot in its first week (due to a strong young fanbase), charted at #20, and quickly dropped off due to lack of any airplay. As per WP:NSONGS: Notability aside, a separate article is only appropriate on a song when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album. At this point in time, the info on the page is all the info that'll ever be on there. SKS2K6 (talk) 23:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to album or artist. No need for deletion if it at least charted. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect Makes sense. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:41, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Camp Rock (soundtrack) the soundtrack for the movie (Camp Rock) this appeared in. But, if this is done, then perhaps the same should happen for these two songs also on the soundtrack: We Rock (Camp_Rock_song), This Is Me (Camp Rock song). LinguistAtLarge 00:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 03:53, 16 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) 12:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shiba Inu Puppy Cam

In my opinion, this subject, while getting some trivial media coverage, has not demonstrated that it is of lasting significance; I am not convinced that Wikipedia needs an article about this web site. I suggest, if it still seems significant in one year's time, then would be the time to write about it. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as creator. It easily satisfies the WP:N and WP:Web notability criteria created for such things, with articles devoted entirely to the site published by Time, People, New York Newsday, etc. Every day there are more articles in major publications. 1.2 million viewer-hours is a very significant viewership, on par with many feature films and other pieces of reality content. We have decided as an encyclopedia to cover Internet memes - this argument is basically that we should not. Understanding this kind of phenomenon is an important part of an encyclopedia treatment of modern popular culture. Its popularity spans about a month now. A year from now those sources will still be online, and presumably the puppies will be grown and the event over. There is no one-year waiting period on Wikipedia, or prohibition against covering events of a limited duration. Wikidemon (talk) 23:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Are the dates in the references section the dates of the articles or the dates they were viewed? Because it certainly makes it look like a one time event. And even though I accept that it got media coverage, I'm still struggling with what is notable. It seems like it could be merged into an article on web-cams. But as a stand alone topic it seems rather ummm absurd. But maybe that's just me. Will people want to look up this information and read about it and even if they do wouldn't it be cool to have it in the context of other web-cam events? ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:45, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article Webcam is about the technology, not the content. Adding a list of content produced with webcams would be akin to listing famous photographs in the camera article. There are so many of them, starting with the Trojan Room coffee pot (considered the world's first webcam). There is an article, List of Internet phenomena, that references a whole bunch of these, mostly with reference to child articles. It would be impractical and contrary to our hyperlinked encyclopedia format, to adequately describe all of the notable webcams in the space of a single article. Interestingly I could not find a category just for webcam content. The webcam category lists types of devices. There are a few categories where these appear, such asCategory:Internet memes. I suppose some webcam content is famous because it becomes a viral phenomenon; others for other reasons (e.g. Justin.tv started as webcam reality entertainment. Wikidemon (talk) 23:59, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank you for investigating. What you've said all makes sense. It's clear you understand my concern and my desire for stronger articles that are more comprehensive. In light of your convincing arguments, and as much as this seems a bit trivial (it's with great generosity I added the words "a bit") it passes the established notability threshold. Perhaps in the future it will be worked into a broader article dealing with its relative significance (or insignificance) as the case may be.

KeepChildofMidnight (talk) 02:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete or Merge. I agree that this has gotten media coverage, but I struggle to see how it is truly notable. I would think something would have to be live and culturally significant for more than just one month for it to be notable. Content like this could be merged into List of Internet phenomena. LinguistAtLarge 00:40, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sources already in article establish notability in the usual way. No reason to treat this as an exception. Wily D 00:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- multiple independent sources, including Time and People, are a pretty clear indication of notability. Umbralcorax (talk) 00:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:09, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Coverage on NBC Tonight and an upcoming feature in Entertainment Weekly are just two reliable sources covering this. Firmly established as a notable Internet phenomenon. Buspar (talk) 09:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Scrapes by through dedicated articles in national media outlets Time and NBC news, as well as the other more trivial coverage -Halo (talk) 06:23, 16 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. While not being perfectly written, the subject school is large and well known, and the article can be referenced.--Patton 123 20:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

C. T. Walker Traditional Magnet School

It's orphaned, uncited, and poorly written. I don't believe it's about a subject of enough importance to be on Wikipedia. If it were to remain, it needs serious attention. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 22:44, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Needs to be fixed. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is no need to delete this. I googled it and found interesting sources here and here. I edited and expanded the article with the provided sources. Definitely exists as a public school and shouldn't be deleted. ~Beano~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure what's notable -- or even interesting-- about a news story that a girl at the school "was found in school with a knife". Or why something so mundane should be mentioned in a section entitled "Crime". If anything, the two stories underscore the fact that the school does not receive coverage outside of Augusta, Georgia.

I understand your comment. I was just finding and adding sources to establish that there are reliable sources out there for this school. ~Beano~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:40, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Richmond County School District, as per policy with most primary schools. Mandsford (talk) 01:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clean up and Keep. The article is poorly sourced and has few links but is worthy of remaining in Wikipedia. LinguistAtLarge 00:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Cunard (talk) 08:24, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. —Cunard (talk) 08:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Most primary schools and their articles are not notable. This article makes a credible case for notability for the school, but needs to have sources and references properly integrated into the article to support these claims. There is no reason that this article cannot be improved. Alansohn (talk) 19:10, 14 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 List of Nintendo DS games (that is the sub-articles of it).

Let me explain this a bit further: Consensus is to merge the information somewhere, disagreement was just about the where to. There are already three lists (see List of Nintendo DS games) used for DS games.

One option was to merge the information into those lists, making a new coloum for "Rumble Pak" enabled. The other was to use Category:Nintendo DS games with Rumble Pak Support (or similar) to categorize them. There was no clear consensus here which of those merge options to prefer, but the options are not mutually exclusive, so the information can be merged into the lists and the games can (and maybe should) be sorted into such a category.

So I think closing this as merge to the list-articles does not run counter the !votes by those who !voted to merge it into a category but supplements it (as a categorisation is still an option even when the content is merged to the lists). Regards So Why 11:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Nintendo DS Rumble Pak Support games

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

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

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

It's just a random list, and it so happens to be the only list of rumble-supported video games. Why should we make a list for this one feature? What about "List of Nintendo DS games that use the second slot" or "List of Wii games that uses the Classic Controller"? A Link to the Past (talk) 22:40, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 22:50, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Merge the authors of this article are welcome to add this information to an existing article. For instance an asterisk after a list of games indicating those game titles support a rumble pak. But this topic is not encyclopedic. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, you think it's a random list? It's a list of specific titles. These titles are not finite. We've seen several games released this year that support the Rumble Pak and more are coming (including Tomb Raider: Underworld next week). I was alerted that the list was wiped by a few forum postings elsewhere, and I restored it and even began retouching it with corrections and a larger description. It is needed. DS owners trying to factor if purchasing a Rumble Pak is a feasible option will find this entry quite useful. It also informs DS owners of features in various games that they are likely unaware of. Just because you don't agree with these points nor the existance of the entry does not constitute deletion in the slightest. Peacemaker75 (talk) 23:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You could just make a Yes/No checkbox on the exsisting List of Nintendo DS games, right?--Koji† 23:44, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CommentDid you read my comment? I suggested a way I thought this information could be included in the existing list articles. The problem is that this is an encyclopedia, not a gaming review magazine. Compare this to cars. Should there be an article listing two-wheel drive cars? This might be useful for people looking for two-wheel drive cars. And one on 4-wheel drive cars, for people interested in that. And one listing SUVs. And one listing cars between 15,000-and 20,000 dollars. And one listing convertibles. And one listing cars that come in navy blue. I'm not trying to blast you, so I apologize if it comes off that way, but I encourage you to think about how to include the information you want included in a way that's encyclopedic. Why not consolidate it with the existing articles. That would be cool because then people looking through the lists of Nintendo games would have this information. You may not be able to get an article on this particular list, but maybe you can include the same information in an existing article. I also suggest finding newspaper and magazine articles discussing this topic and including some of that information as well. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or possibly merge to the lists of Nintendo DS games. The concept of such a list I believe is notable. I can see why it would've been taken out of the lists if it was originally in the list, but I will not go into that here. I don't think adding what would be equivalent to a waffer-thin mint to the lists would make them explode. MuZemike (talk) 01:04, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I strongly disagree with the idea that this is so much more notable than any other rumble support list or accessory support list. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and as such, should not have this list. It's of limited interest and limited use, and only serves to create more and more lists. And as for merging, that's another floodgate I do not want open - people adding more and more to the list. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I feel it is a good thing to have collected 'knowledge' on subjects - however large or small - easily accessible and accurate. Is that not one of the goals of the Wikipedia project? You've authored a couple lists of games yourself. "It's just Metroid. Merge it into the list of popular platforming games." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.137.143.234 (talk) 04:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC) — 74.137.143.234 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    - No. Wikipedia is specifically NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Finding a list of games I created is not an apt comparison. There's tons of precedence to have lists of games by series, but far less for list of games by accessory support. If List of Nintendo DS Rumble Pak Support games is appropriate, then I suggest lists be made for games that support the DSi's camera, the Nunchuk, the Classic Controller, the GameCube Microphone controller, the Wii Wheel, the Wii Zapper, the Wii Balance Board, etc. It creates a bad precedence, and unless there can be an argument why the Rumble Pak Support games article is a better idea than those, I don't see why it should remain an article. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:27, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well, all of those lists you just proposed would have even less content than this list does. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 18:52, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Seriously? Less games use the Nunchuk than the DS Rumble Pak, a fairly unsuccessful device that Nintendo rarely supports anymore? I'm still lost as to why this one accessory is more important than every other accessory. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:15, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Why is this one accessory any less important then every other accessory? Devils advocate arguments aside, I imagine that there are a fair amount more games that use the DS Rumble Pak than the, Zapper, Balance Boar, Microphone, camera and wheel. I would argue that the Nunchuk isn't at accessory, as it's part of the damn controller (Wiimote) and that the Classic Controller obviously would have the most detailed list, as it encompasses a large handful of new games plus the entire Virtual Console line. If you feel that strongly about it, go make the lists. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 01:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        It's not, it's equally unimportant - this is why we don't have other lists based on which games use which accessories. And the Nunchuk is not part of the controller, it's an optional add-on. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Firstly, the existence or nonexistence of a different list has no baring on THIS discussion. Secondly, if the Nunchuk was optional, it wouldn't come with the Wiimote nor would be required in well over half the Wiis retail games. You can't claim something as optional when it has that level of utility. Thirdly, this entire talk of lists is irrelevant given that the information can easily be added to an already existing list. -- 67.181.120.29 (talk) 05:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC) — 67.181.120.29 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
        Yes, it does. We don't have lists of items in games for the same reason - if this were a list of Mario power-ups, it would get AfDed, and the lack of other sustainable item articles would be a strong rationale to delete. And the Nunchuk does not come with the Wii Remote, it came with the Wii. I can think of many games that don't use require it - Brawl, Mario Kart Wii, Wii Fit, Wii Sports, Wii Play, Pokémon Battle Revolution, Super Paper Mario, Guitar Hero III, Guitar Hero: World Tour, Rock Band, Rock Band 2, Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles: My Life as a King, Dr. Mario Online RX, etc. Many games do not require the Wii Remote - it is not a built-in aspect of the controller, and has been referred to as an attachment. And stuff like this is exactly what shouldn't be on lists - it's a mechanic of the game, which is no more important than many other mechanics. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Comparing in-universe data to tangible objects seems like kind of a stretch to me. I'd also like to point out that while your example of games not needing the Nunchuk is nice, 'most' =/= 'majority'. Additionally, the basic mechanic of a game does strike me as something a information seeking person might like to know. This is getting us no where. Can you site me a policy that strictly no-nos a merge (or a keep for that matter)? -- Jelly Soup (talk) 09:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        In-universe data can be far more notable than the DS Rumble Pak, and in the case of Mario items, probably is. And I pretty much proved how often the Nunchuk is not required, meaning there's no basis to say that it's a "part of the controller". And it's NOT a basic mechanic of one single game - it's a totally optional accessory included in only two games, and available only online now. You far overstate the importance of rumble for the DS, and including it over far more important information such as whether it is multiplayer on the list of DS games is absurd. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I would think that if Mario items were more notable than the DS Rumble Pak, the article would exist. The fact that it doesn't ends this line of thought. Yes, you proved how often the Nunchuk is not required. I proved how often it is. We are straying away from the topic. I'm not trying to claim that DS Rumble is some kind of incredibly important function of gaming. I'm claiming that it's at least important enough to add an extra column onto the table on the games list.
        And it would seem I was right. The list already exists here. Changing vote accordingly. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 22:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        You're missing my point entirely - your point would be good only if this list were notable. The point is that list of Mario items is not notable AND more notable than the rumble pak list. And it is not important enough to be the one single gameplay feature to be mentioned on the list. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I get your point completely. I just disagree with you. That's how opinions work. You have your delete vote, so this discussion is now moot. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 23:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete List in question already exists here and there isn't enough information to constitute an independent list. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 18:52, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. 'Nuff said. -Koryu Obihiro (talk) 20:51, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why is it 'Nuff said? I think that people who want this information merged or kept should have to, at the very least, explain why this information is more important than other, similar lists. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Surely this information should be on the games pages.Nintendofootball (talk) 17:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into category: As Jelly Soup said, the information is already here, I recommend the article be deleted and create a category for those articles on the list. – Jerry^teps 23:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Make into category. There's little or nothing that this list adds which a self-maintaining category could not. Stifle (talk) 09:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Ryanair#Accidents and incidents. So Why 07:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ryanair Flight 296

Non notable event.
Nearly identical information located in main Ryanair#Accidents_and_incidents article.
Does not meet the criteria of being notable by WP:Aviation guidelines Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aviation/Style_guide#Accidents_notability T*85 (talk) 22:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect Merge anything useful although I don't see any sign of referenced information. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —ApprenticeFan (talk) 00:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything not already mentioned in the Ryanair article. Mandsford (talk) 01:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect as even the nom is suggesting. Content already in Ryanair#Accidents_and_incidents and that's where this ought to be re-directed. StarM 02:24, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 02:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 02:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Delete While it apparently resulted in a few minor changes to policy it doesn't appear to have been a notable accident in aviation history nor did it result in a groundbreaking, notable change to airline/aviation codes or procedures so I can't see this fitting any criteria for an independent article. NcSchu_(Talk) 03:27, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "It is a non-injury incident which materially contributes to a change in industry or aircraft procedures." It doesn't say anything about "minor". The incident has resulted in changes in how ATC deals with these types of emergency procedures, so it is notable to the extent that it tells us where these changes came from. 79.68.188.52 (talk) 06:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article has not been improved with respect to references as was suggested in an earlier AfD debate. Adequately covered in the Ryanair and Stansted Airport articles. Mjroots (talk) 06:57, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets requirements re changes to industry practice. Changes were made to how ATC deals with fire emergencies as a reult of this incident. If those changes had been in place and followed, this would not be notable. But they weren't, so it is. 217.28.34.132 (talk) 07:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with above. Changes to emergency procedures were made by CAA as a result. 212.159.92.22 (talk) 08:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The article has been improved since the last AfD. It now much more accurately reflects what happened, as well as giving a link to the recommendations by the investigators. But merge is a possibility, since the section in the main Ryanair article is similar. Harry the Dog WOOF 09:09, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only arguments for inclusion are: 1. At the time it was the most serious Ryanair incident and it's not anymore. 2. The incident report led to recommendations (as all reports do) but no has offered any verification that the incident actually lead to changes. In any case they would have been minor ones. The guidelines say materially contributes means "to a significant degree". 87.74.3.2 (talk) 09:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The purpose of the recommendations was to try to prevent another Manchester incident, which this could easily have become had there been an actual fire. Seems pretty material to me. Harry the Dog WOOF 10:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not particularly notable and all accident reports make recommendations although none appear to be notable enough to be detailed in the article. MilborneOne (talk) 11:24, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge/~~Delete This was a non-notable aviation incident. ~~Merge summary to Boeing 737 Next Generation (Accidents and incidents section)~~ (not notable for there either) and delete Flight 296 article. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are 7 published reports by AAIB in 2008, 5 of them involve airlines. All of them have recommendations, all of them do not have there own article, and only two of them are listed in the airlines article.

November 2006, Thomas Cook Airlines, 5 recommendations to Airbus, [3]
October 2006, Eastern Airways, 4 recommendations to FAA & BAE Systems, [4]
October 2005, British Airways. 9 recommendations to BA, Airbus, EASA, ICAO, [5]
March 2006, Emerald Airways. 1 recommendation to themselves telling them to do a better job, [6]
June 2006, TNT Airways. 1 safety recommendation to the country of Belgium to carry out an investigation into TNT, [7]

--T*85 (talk) 19:12, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As I wrote before, important event that received lots of media attention due to exposing problems with Ryanair's safety training. There's too much topic specific content to merge to the Ryanair article. Article has even been improved since the last AfD.--Oakshade (talk) 05:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The media criticism of Ryanair's training wasn't borne out in the report which made 1 minor training recommendation. 87.74.3.2 (talk) 08:56, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can you point out anything that is in the Ryanair Flight 296 article that is not mentioned in the Ryanair article?--T*85 (talk) 06:15, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ryanair#Accidents and incidents. Comparing this to other incidents we have articles on, this emergency landing is a minor event, no injuries, no real peril, no write-off level damage to the plane. If this were an incident with another airline, deletion would probably be quite uncontroversial. However, while Ryanair's safety record remains strong, its safety practices have been under scrutiny and that scrutiny is worthy of coverage. This incident is only part of the reason behind that scrutiny. That scrutiny relates more to the airline itself than the incident, therefore I think it is better to cover this incident, along with the whole scrutiny Ryanair has received, in the article on the airline. The current Ryanair article has a reasonable summary of the event already. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:33, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- yet another NN aviation incident. We do not have articles on car prangs, and we do not need them on minor aviation breakdowns either. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. speedy, snow, IAR. StarM 02:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bottom up thought leadership

Unreferenced OR essay. KurtRaschke (talk) 21:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SPEEDY DELETE NOW NOW NOW!!! :) Yikes. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clear cut (un)original research. Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 22:30, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Clearly unreferenced original research. There are virtually no useful Google hits for "Bottom up thought leadership". LinguistAtLarge 00:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete — not sure that this falls under any criteria (even though someone has already tagged it for speedy, which indicates that some users choose to ignore the rules, which is OK), but yeah. Unverifiable essay which, in its current state, clearly does not belong in the encyclopedia. MuZemike (talk) 01:10, 14 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) 23:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Death Metal (Possessed demo)

Disputed prod (didn't see the prior AfD). Article sports one book as a source, claiming it as possibly the origin of the term "Death Metal. However, there is no in depth coverage. Book says, it total, one sentance: "Meanwhile, in 1983, the term was co-coined by some American teens who formed the band Possessed and labeled their demo 'Death Metal'". Sources found for prior AfD were similarly shallow. While it might be worth including in Death metal, this article does not meet general notability guidelines: substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. Raised by User:SummerPhD

AfD report broken, I'm fixing it. Count me as Neutral on this. Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 22:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, preferably speedy I put up for speedy. This it the third go round. It has one reference that isn't about it per se. Maybe this topic should be redirected to prevent further recreations of a non-notable demo that should be included in the appropriate article (if at all). ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it failed WP:MUSIC#Albums then, it fails WP:MUSIC#Albums now. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 11:58, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 04:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and fuck you Inx272 ^"Talk"

What was your reason for keeping? If would be useful to know if you think it is notable and why (for example). Thanks. Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 15:29, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: or if a reliable reference can be found Keep. – Jerry^teps 23:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No verifiable content to merge. Sandstein 23:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clearview airlines

Not notable, no references. KurtRaschke (talk) 21:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I like this in the opening sentence: "is a low- and high-cost fictionairy airline". The article is about an airline in a flight simulator game. Belongs in the parent article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable not real. MilborneOne (talk) 23:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect into the Features => Aircraft section of Microsoft Flight Simulator X. LinguistAtLarge 00:55, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. Raven1977 (talk) 04:08, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - appears to be a work of original research. A possible search term, so a redirect is in order. Marasmusine (talk) 12:53, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. No reliable third-party sources, thus inherently fails WP:V and WP:N. Randomran (talk) 17:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 13:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stock Market Rebound

Little more than a dictionary definition; the external links do not actually address the topic being discussed. KurtRaschke (talk) 21:30, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think "economic recovery" might be a more appropriate article. This might even be an interesting topic, although I'm not in love with the title, but there's nothing here worth keeping as it's unreferenced original research. And the title shouldn't be in all-caps. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice. The references given seem to be to the start pages of several financial firms, and do not back up the assertion of this "professional definition". The subject may well support an article, though. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:32, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The professional definition cannot be referring to one specific index, while the term itself is for a generic stock market. Also 5% in 1 hour, etc., seems to be quite arbitrary - leaning towards incorrect or nonsense too. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 16:19, 15 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 The Agonist. So Why 07:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alissa White-Gluz

Fails WP:MUSIC. No individual notability (and, in fact, the band seems to fail as well). Disputed prod (though those for the band, their one album and the guy are still up). SummerPhD (talk) 21:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect I think that's the best way to focus the article's creator on including this material and making the parent article the best it can be... I haven't looked to see whether the band is notable, but this band member certainly isn't. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:25, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the info. of Alissa White-Gluz should stay active, because she gives a sort of power to the band by her voice, her death growls, her look. SOme people is searching information of Alissa and they cannot found hers... She is a notable female metal singer........not for all, but for some fans of her music. Please, don't delete Alissa's section, please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OmegaXmutantX (talk • contribs) 22:54, 13 November 2008

Hi. I understand your concern. First of all please type ~~~~ after you leave comments so people can identify who they're from. The issue is that there is already an article about the band. So that's the best place to include the information. The second issue is whether even the band is notable. Not every band on Myspace is included. So you can help thet effort by adding references to newspaper coverage of the band. Unless there is newspaper and/ or magazine coverage of Alissa as a notable (meaning covered by the mainstream media) artist on her own, she doesn't get an article of her own. Does that make sense? It's nothing personal. It's just the best way to keep the encyclopedia organized. Can you imagine if every band had an article, and then every album, and then every member of every band? And maybe some of the songs too?ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:30, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Agonist for failing to meet WP:MUSIC. I agree with the nom, I don't see the band passing either. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 11:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Agonist and redirect. The band is notable. White-Gluz appears not to be notable outside the context of the band.--Michig (talk) 19:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Also notable for being a Canadian Idol contestant and for the media coverage that implies. See this coverage at MTV News: "Agonist Singer Recalls Painful Time On 'Canadian Idol'; Plus Philip Anselmo & More News That Rules, In Metal File". MTV News. December 7, 2007. Retrieved 2008-11-14. -- Eastmain (talk) 21:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 21:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 21:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge This article purportedly about her is mostly about the band. I presume then there is little verifiable facts about her from reliable sources and this info should be merged to the band article with no prejudice against a break-out article when there is sufficient information to justify it. DoubleBlue (Talk) 16:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. I think it's WP:MUSIC which clarifies that individual musicians within a band should generally be redirects to the band unless they're independently notable for something other than the band — had she won Canadian Idol, she'd probably merit her own article, but I don't see why simply being a contestant couldn't be adequately addressed by discussing it in the band's article instead of a standalone. Bearcat (talk) 16:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a1, no meaningful content, not really an article. NawlinWiki (talk) 23:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agressive Rollerblading

Not in the slightest bit encyclopedic; Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. KurtRaschke (talk) 21:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Regardless of the outcome, "Agressive" is missing a "g". Joshdboz (talk) 21:41, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete It's spelled wrong and it's an obvious cut and paste from somewhere else. DELETE NOW NOW NOW!!! :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. It's a cut and paste from Inline roller skating tricks Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 22:47, 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 redirect to Bengali poetry. MBisanz ^talk 13:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Subhro Bandyopadhyay

Non notable poet. Fails WP:N. Article also lacks any references establishing the subject's notability. Previous AFD ended in no consensus after a single comment. I proded the page, but it has been contested by a new user. So, I am nominating it for AFD. Ragib (talk) 21:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: Non notable poet, fails WP:N, and also WP:V. --Ragib (talk) 21:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete and redirect Speedy delete this and redirect to Bengali poetry. Let Subhro Bandyopadhyay fight for inclusion there. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:30, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 05:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 05:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 05:22, 16 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 Snowball Delete --JForget 22:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exciting Powerpoint presentations in 7 easy steps

WP:NOTHOWTO. KurtRaschke (talk) 21:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edifying AFD rationale in a mere 5 easy steps:
1. Read the article and its edit history.
2. Read Wikipedia:Five Pillars and observe that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia.
3. Read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and observe that Wikipedia is not a tutorial.
4. Observe that there isn't actually a subject for an encyclopaedia article here, and that this article is not an attempt at writing one, but an attempt at writing a tutorial for using Microsoft PowerPoint. (Also observe the existence of a far better tutorial that already exists at Microsoft Office PowerPoint.)
5. Conclude, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy:
Delete. Uncle G (talk) 21:40, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in just one easy step. How-to guide. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 22:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as how-to guide ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:33, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not one of the speedy delete criteria so I removed the tag. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:13, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that would explain why I couldn't find it in the speedy delete articles. But if how-to guides aren't allowed I don't know why they can't be speedy deleted. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:09, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, while I'm here I may as well add: delete per Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is the author's first contribution to Wikipedia, and we welcome new contributors. The article is nicely written, but Wikipedia has a strict rule that says, entitled "Instruction manuals", that says "While Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places and things, a Wikipedia article should not read like a how-to style manual of instructions, advice (legal, medical or otherwise) or suggestions, or contain how-tos. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, game guides and recipes.[4] If you are interested in a how-to style manual, you may want to look at wikiHow or our sister project Wikibooks." It's listed under WP:NOTHOWTO. None of the people in this discussion have anything against you (the author); we're just referring to the ground rules for articles here. You're new, you probably weren't aware of this particular rule, we hope you'll keep contributing. Welcome to Wikipedia. Mandsford (talk) 02:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Mansford, that's class. Bless you. --Lockley (talk) 05:20, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. What I love about Wikipedia is that we all get a chance to write. Everything gets published, though not everything gets to stay published. Overall, it's a great community to be part of. Mandsford (talk) 13:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete may be WP:USEFUL, but not appropriate content for WP. JJL (talk) 04:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Under WP is not a how-to guide. Lugnuts (talk) 07:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTHOWTO pretty much covers this. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 14:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a speedy candidate, though, but it is, as noted above, a how-to page. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:35, 14 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 13:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Imperas

Strong promotional tone; notability not established. KurtRaschke (talk) 21:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I vote for delete unless someone wants to fix this article. It could be notable... but it's marginable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete reads like an ad, notability unclear --skew-t (talk) 05:57, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, yet another conflict of interest (article created by User:Larry.Imperas), ad-style article promoting the benefits of the offerings made by a minor, non-consumer tech business. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:39, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 05:26, 16 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. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Utah College of Massage Therapy

Promotional tone; lacking reliable primary sources. KurtRaschke (talk) 21:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as advertisement. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deleted as blatant advertising with no good version to revert to. Nyttend (talk) 01:22, 14 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. I think it's snowing, don't you? (non-admin closure) DARTH PANDA ^duel 06:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lantin Prison

Notability not asserted. A place's notability cannot be based on a single event, even if the event itself is notable. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I say we just rename it as "Lantin Prison Incident" as it was more notable than the place.

User:CyrusDaVirus 21:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability for the prison is shown by http://www.skynet.be/actu-sports/actu/detail_recrudescence-tuberculose-prison-lantin?id=418354 and http://www.levif.be/belga/generale/78-6-9934/deux-deces-par-overdose-a-la-prison-de-lantin.html and http://www.325collective.com/prisons_lantin-08.html Prisons, like high schools, are usually the source of enough coverage in reliable sources to write an article. -- Eastmain (talk) 22:23, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 22:23, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and tag This appears to be a new article yes? I think a prison is inherently notable. I suggest tagging it as appropriate. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - lots of good sources already included, notability demonstrated the usual way. Wily D 00:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article has been significantly improved since its creating. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 02:31, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Eastmain. Lantin is one of largest Belgian prisons. The most overcrowded too, btw. -- Mvuijlst (talk) 23:45, 14 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. Wizardman 02:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is global warming real or a lie

Not encyclopedic, no references. KurtRaschke (talk) 20:59, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research, essay - Jll (talk) 21:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unreferenced factually incorrect essay. Bsimmons666 (talk) ^Friend? 21:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a barely coherent original research essay. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not an article. JuJube (talk) 21:23, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It may not be snowing in Antarctica, but it is here. (OR, ESSAY) AlexTiefling (talk) 21:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete everything was mentioned before. abf /talk to me/ 21:59, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly an essay and OR. Snowball time?. Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 22:49, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Essay. Original Research. Enough said. Lady★Galaxy 23:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A clear soapbox. --Farix (Talk) 01:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Snowballs happen even with global warming. Mandsford (talk) 02:09, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR personal essay. Most likely classwork. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 14:44, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as obvious OR and Essay. Should have been speedied rather than sent to AFD. 23skidoo (talk) 15:44, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per others. -Drilnoth (talk) 18:51, 14 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 13:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Banana Empire

Apparently has an avid following in Connecticut, but it is hard to confirm since the only source I can find is their Myspace page. Doesn't seem to come close to passing WP:MUSIC; Jll (talk) 20:40, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No label, no released albums, no coverage, no national tour, so no article should be on Wikipedia. Theseeker4 (talk) 20:45, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Cool name, but they don't meet any of the requirements for music notability. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 20:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 21:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 05:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 05:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 05:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I searched in Google News archives and in a library database for sources that would help to establish WP:N notability but alas I found none. Delete unless sources are forthcoming by the end of this deletion discussion, since the band does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC criteria otherwise. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 03:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Devall

Non-notable investment company, fails WP:CORP. No coverage in third-party sources, zero ghits for Devall Investment Group. SheepNotGoats (Talk) 20:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as blatant spam of a non-notable company. Theseeker4 (talk) 20:42, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced article, little or evidence of notability. On the borderline of being promotional, but it definitely reads like it was written by a representative of the company itself. ~ mazca ^t|c 22:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of notability. Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 22:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (G11) — Spamming. MuZemike (talk) 01:15, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 05:29, 16 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 13:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SBS Transit Service 579

This is ~~the first of a host of possible~~a group of nominations ~~(to be submitted as a group)~~ of what I believe to be non-notable (per WP:NTS) bus routes in Singapore that I happened upon.

Per that guideline, national routes are required to meet the general notability guideline, while for a smaller route (such as the ones under discussion) "to be notable, it must be discussed in considerable detail as to its impact on a region." The articles, to the contrary, are schedules and lists of bus stops, equipment used, with no or minimal editorial content.

~~Before taking the trouble to nominate them all, I hope to see whether there is a consensus on this~~. After submitting one article as a test, a consensus that the articles are not notable quickly arose. Hence the revision to include the entire list of routes found in Template:Singapore Bus Routes. Bongo matic 07:20, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments made when only first article had been submitted (though several of these comments refer to the entire list):

Speedy delete - it's totally unencyclopedic and unreferenced. - ÆÅM «(fætsøn!) 07:35, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the group. My totally unencyclopedic reasoning is somewhat different: such information, regardless of notability, may have any value only when it is regularly kept up-to-date. Apparently, wikipedia and its Singapore chapter cannot "enforce" such updates. Sooner or later the bus schedules will change (they do), and keeping stale info on wikipedia will mislead the accidental reader. Wikipedia should not host ephemeral information. NVO (talk) 07:46, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Bus routes are so fluid and temporary that trying to cover them reasonably is usually impossible, and Wikipedia is not a bus schedule. This is as opposed to tram or subway lines where the presence of tracks ensures some permanence. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:25, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not actually true in many cases, where bus routes still closely follow the old streetcar routes they replaced some 70 years ago. I have no idea if it's true here, though, and the article is just a list of stops. --NE2 12:36, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- We do not need articles on individual bus routes; Yes for train and tram lines, becasue they do not easily move, but not for buses. They are essentially unmaintainable, except by the operator, who will have its own website. This sort of thing has come up several times before. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:10, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NVO, Sjakkalle, and Peterkingiron. I would endorse the deletion of similar articles about bus routes in Singapore or any other city on the same grounds. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:31, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not a travel guide. MilborneOne (talk) 13:20, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do not Delete Wikipedia is a website to help people in passengers information in need. An encyclopedia is meant to help people, not to delete useful object. Please reconsider. Thank You. SBSinTransit (talk) 23.48, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Keep While I m Not Sure About The Other Articles But I Think SBS Transit Service 225 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is the history of the bus which is worth keeping.Either It Should Be Merged With Bedok Bus Interchange Or We Could Just leave it as it is now.Yoshi-Sg(talk)

Please list new comments below here:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note nomination may be defective. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:10, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close as the nomination does not describe articles like SBS Transit Service 225. I'm not sure that most of that belongs, but at least some of the history could be merged somewhere - in this case probably Bedok Bus Interchange. --NE2 14:16, 9 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 20:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at and comment on all the articles. Thank you. --NE2 20:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect. An article on each bus route is a step too far. Maybe even two steps too far. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:12, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete as per WP:NOTGUIDE. If we keep this it creates a precedent that every single bus route in the world deserves an article on WP.Michellecrisp (talk) 01:15, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as like List of bus routes in London. If you don't keep will delete all the articles straightaway.Timothyhouse1 (talk) 09:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, can you please clarify what you mean? None of these articles is a list of bus routes--each of them in fact is a separate bus route. A list of Singapore bus routes would seem less objectionable (although still totally unencylopedic). Bongo matic 10:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep same as above. Timothyhouse1 (talk) 09:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep like Buses At Work and London Bus Routes, a list of the articles may be found in separate page. Timothyhouse1 (talk) 12:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

* Comment you cannot vote 3 times in a deletion discussion. Michellecrisp (talk) 14:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a vote. McWomble (talk) 05:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to something similar to List of bus routes in London. McWomble (talk) 05:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closure. (non-admin closure) DARTH PANDA ^duel 20:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bukit Tagar Landfill

I see no claim of notability to this particular garbage dump. Others such as Dhapa, India do have at least some claim but this arrears to have none. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 19:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - article contains many substantial scholarly third party sources. Meets and exceeds the usual inclusion threshold by a wide margin. I see no reason to make a highly exceptional choice in this case. WilyD 00:32, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- When I first prodded the article it contained nothing at all and you have since added several works on the landfill. However, I don't see anything in them that indicates why this paticular landfill is notable. I can find several works and studies on the sewage lagoon that was developed and constructed for Ulukhaktok, Northwest Territories but the existance of them does not indicat that the lagoon would be anymore notable than this landfill. By the way why is it "...a highly exceptional choice in this case." CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 00:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Err, I have not edited the article at all. User:Uncle G has taken the time to dig up the sources. Notable is Wikipedia jargon - in order to try and take a neutral point of view on what's notable, we follow what more authoritative sources have already deemed to be notable. If the sewage lagoon for Ulukhaktok is discussed in a plethora of reliable sources, then the usual understanding is that it is notable, as it is also in the dictionary definition (indeed, many people have taken note of this garbage dump).

In any event, notability isn't established by the inclusion of sources in the article, but by there mere existence. Rushing to AfD without investigating the article is never a good choice.

It would be a highly exceptional choice to delete something which met and exceeded the criteria of the guideline on inclusion, since that very rarely happens. Wily D 13:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I did mean Uncle G. However, at the time I first saw the article (here) there was nothing in it to indicate notability. Nor after checking through the history did I find anything that indicated notability either. In fact if this article had been about a band or a person then it would have been eligible for a speedy, and it's possible to argue that the article, at the time, could have been deleted at any time as a A3 ("...a rephrasing of the title,..."). Of the six items listed under further reading only one, the "Eleventh International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium", provides any concrete proof of notability. The first is an advertising piece from one of the developers. The last four are newspapers and without knowing the papers concerned it's hard to tell if they are reporting news or it's just filler. They fall under the "Presumed" section of Wikipedia:Notability. That is the same point that I was trying to make with the Ulukhaktok sewage lagoon. There are several government documents dealing with it and several newspaper reports on it. The newspaper reports tend to be filler and human interest items rather than real news which the paper would also cover. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 06:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Wily's careful assessment of the subject's notability. His efforts meet the usual criteria and I see no reason to deviate here. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per the sources added that indicate it has been the in-depth subject of secondary sources, the core criteria of WP:NOTABILITY. --Oakshade (talk) 05:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The additions by User:Uncle G, in particular the the fact that it was featured at the "Eleventh International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium" (http://warrr.org/81/) persuades me that the landfill is indeed notable and I wish to withdraw the nomination. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 06:49, 15 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 by User:TexasAndroid. (non-admin closure) ~ mazca ^t|c 23:33, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Nicolo

Appears to be a copy+paste of press releases / promotion material such as http://www.flickerwire.com/files/uploaded/pages/519/Feverpitch-Storyteller-ProjectOverview-6-20-08.pdf Oscarthecat (talk) 19:45, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete (G12), with no evidence that the press-release was released under a free license, this would appear to be a blatant copyright violation. Tagging as such. ~ mazca ^t|c 22:57, 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. I would be happy to userfy this if someone is of a mind to re-write the article to address the concerns raised during the discussion. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 23:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kamau Kambon

AfDs for this article:

Violation of WP:NOT#NEWS. This individual is only possibly notable for a single event that was covered by the media, which the policy explicitly states is not enough to warrant an article just for the person. The C-SPAN event would have to be considered on its own, and in the context of the genocide topic it is probably not notable either, though that debate is outside the scope of the AfD candidacy. Trickrick1985 (talk) 23:19, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, Delete as nominated. Outside of some cranky blogs, I can't find anything which establishes this chap's notability. X MarX the Spot (talk) 00:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This guy sounds like a despicable person and a major dick, but that doesn't make him notable. Other than the incident at Howard Law School which was broadcast on CSPAN, Kambon is non-notable and per WP:NOT#NEWS the event should be covered, not the person. Content from this article could possibly be merged with Hurricane Katrina or related article since Kambon was hardly the only ethnocentric racist who had something to say then. (Kayne West, anyone?) --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 00:20, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 00:23, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 00:23, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Arguably notable on the basis of his unsuccessful age discrimination lawsuit against St. Augustine's College, role as occasional television commentator and someone well-known in Raleigh's black community, and bookstore owner. The most recent news reference I can find is an obituary that quotes him . -- Eastmain (talk) 00:23, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are many thousands of bookstore owners, failed lawsuit plantiffs, and millions of well-known local people. None of those things make this person notable. Trickrick1985 (talk) 00:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"well-known in Raleigh's black community" and media reference invalid per WP:LOCALFAME. Trickrick1985 (talk) 04:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The statement was notable enough and received abundant coverage. Should the article be moved to Controversy surrounding statement by Kamau Kambon or something else? I should mention that the doctrine of "cover the event, not the person" leads to some very awkward article titles. -- Eastmain (talk) 00:40, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, if we could establish that the one event was significant in the context of its topic. So the question is, on the topic of genocide throughout history, is this guy's comment on C-SPAN significant? I'd personally say no, but that may be disputable. Trickrick1985 (talk) 14:46, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - mostly per nom, and per Amwestover. [roux » x] 00:48, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This article does not harm the encyclopaedia, it is reasonably well referenced (or should I say it doesn't contain any "fact" tags). I can think of worse articles that we should trying to delete (i.e. ones that are Original Research). A warning for beginners; please don't respond to this by merely copy n pasting a "It doesn't do any harm" link and somehow think that it makes my point any less valid. For a start, that's just an essay and it then goes on to explain that this is only for unreferenced articles. Ryan4314 (talk) 00:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In addition to using the "no harm" non-argument, you also say that other articles should be deleted first, which is another non-argument and irrelevant to the discussion. Your only argument is that it's "reasonably well sourced" which does not make a contribution encyclopedic. Notability is paramount, and per the article's content this person is only the least bit notable for one event. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 01:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So you're basically contradicting yourself by arguing WP:NOHARM and WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS (Oh noes! I done it!) while at the same time trying to defend by stating it's just an essay. MuZemike (talk) 03:06, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. WP:NOHARM is very relevant here, please refer to WP:ONLYESSAY about dismissing applicability. WP:NOHARM also, on the contrary, does not say that it's "only for unreferenced articles". It says the issue is at the heart of a larger debate. Trickrick1985 (talk) 14:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Keep. Not notable enough. Based on a Google Scholar search and a few other searches in academic databases, I do not think he meets any of the WP:PROF criteria. Nor does he meet any of the WP:BIO criteria. A Google News search returned one single NRO article, where he is not featured. Just saying outrageous things does not make a person notable. As for possibly being a “despicable person”, that is not a reason for deletion.--Eric Yurken (talk) 01:53, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your googlenews search data is incorrect. When you do the GoogleNews search, the initial results that it gives are only for the newsarticles for the last two weeks (or maybe the last month, I am not exactly sure). The NRO article you mention is produced by such a search. However, to see googlenews hits for older articles one then has to hit "All dates" link on the left tab. Such an "all dates" googlenews search gives an additional 38 hits[8]. Nsk92 (talk) 04:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I had to go the news archive to get the same hits. But, indeed, based on this new news search it seems that he has enough media coverage that is “reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject”, thus satisfying the basic criteria of WP:BIO. I am changing my delete recommendation to a keep.--Eric Yurken (talk) 14:51, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#NEWS does not question WP:V, it is an independent policy. Reliable coverage of a single event does not satisfy WP:NOTE. On top of that, WP:BIO#Invalid_criteria's second point specifically says not to use search engine result counts as your basis for WP:NOTE judgments. Trickrick1985 (talk) 18:45, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline, I believe, refers to careless use of search engines. The various search engines (Google, academic catalogs) are only tools that can be used to identify sources, and thus notability based on a careful review of the sources. The search engines are good tools in this respect, but not very good ones if used carelessly (as I almost did, but was corrected by Nsk92).--Eric Yurken (talk) 15:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Subject is not notable. Individual appears once on C-SPAN and makes outrageous comments. See WP:Coatrack. --George100 (talk) 14:03, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:43, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The guy is a bona fide nobody who's had 1.5 minutes of fame for being a loudmouth. Haiduc (talk) 00:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I changed my previous delete recommendation to a keep after a more thorough news search. While he does not qualify specifically under WP:PROF, he has enough independent media coverage to qualify under WP:BIO. Wikipedia is not a repository of articles only about nice topics and people. There are many Wikipedia articles about criminals.--Eric Yurken (talk) 15:19, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:NOT#NEWS. Wikipedia cannot cover ever single person whose name gets mentioned in every single news story or blog. There does not appear to be any lasting significance of this person which would make them notable. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:23, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course this is open to debate, and I may be wrong, but it seems to me that WP:BLP1E does not apply here because the coverage is not about one single event, but one single view (a nasty, despicable one), which the author maintains over and over again. If he had expressed that view once, received extensive media coverage, and then never maintained that view again, then WP:BLP1E would certainly apply.--Eric Yurken (talk) 18:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Where have you read that he has maintained the view repeatedly? In all the sources I've seen, he's only made the statement once. --George100 (talk) 12:50, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - A Google News search suggests that he has made his mission in life to argue for the extermination of white people.--Eric Yurken (talk) 14:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I've browsed through quite a few of those stories and none of them suggest anything like that. He simply refused to talk to reporters about the incident afterwards. Several of the articles are repeats of the same Hannity & Colmes interviews; they were trying to make a bigger story out of it than it was. --George100 (talk) 17:17, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew J. O'Bryant

O'Bryant as a US Navy sailor appears to fail the notability criteria for WP:BIO. Although his death is a tragedy (as is anyone's who dies in a terrorist bombing), this One Time Event as an assertion of notability does not merit an encyclopedic bio. — CactusWriter | ^needles 22:03, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very tragic but Wikipedia is not a memorial and the subject doesn't meet WP:BIO. Agree with nom. Fletcher (talk) 23:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No harm in keeping. I'm sure the event was covered in the media. I would support a rigorous edit of his page. But seems notable to me. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:47, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- You seem to be arguing notability for the event. However, this discussion is about notability of the individual. Notability is not transferable. If you feel this person is directly notable for the event, then you may wish to suggest a merge with Islamabad Marriott Hotel bombing. Otherwise, can you offer significant coverage for O'Bryant unrelated to his death that supports WP:BIO? In my searches, I haven't found any. — CactusWriter | ^needles 12:12, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. Good point. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:24, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Islamabad Marriott Hotel bombing. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:24, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable except as someone killed in the notable event and, per WP:NOTMEMORIAL, this article should be deleted. Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 22:00, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm concerned that this article has been marked for deletion because it is noteworthy that a cryptologic technician was killed by a terrorist bombing while on military assignment near a war zone. It is very rare that an intelligence specialist and/or cryptologist would be assigned in or near a war zone. It is also rare that a cryptologist and/or intelligence specialist would be killed in or near a war zone. These types of military personnel are typically not serving in war zones for reasons such as to avoid capture given they are knowledgeable of highly classified information. The minimum security clearance a Navy CT must have is Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI), far above the typical top secret clearance. Upon some due diligence here, I found that O'Bryant was temporarily assigned from his command at Ft. Meade, MD to Chief, Office of the Defense Representative in Pakistan. I believe further discussion on the article is warranted prior to deletion. Additionally, review by military work group peers in the Wikiproject Biography is warranted.(Mattwashdc (talk) 04:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]
- Comment I understand your point that his presence at the bombing might be of interest. However, that is still something suited to the article Islamabad Marriott Hotel bombing (where it is currently not mentioned) rather than a reason for a separate biography about O'Bryant. — CactusWriter | ^needles 16:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As suggested, I've transcluded this discussion to the military and bio projects. — CactusWriter | ^needles 16:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — — CactusWriter | ^needles 15:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — — CactusWriter | ^needles 15:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, the bombing of the Marriott in Islamabad is not "in or near a warzone", other than to the extent all of Pakistan is a warzone. And O'Bryant's killing does not seem particularly related to his specialty in any way. It seems he was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. Fletcher (talk) 16:19, 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, Sandstein 19:36, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Textbook WP:ONEEVENT. O'Bryant has no notability outside of the hotel bombing. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 21:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Also, Fletcher convincingly refutes Mattwashdc's rationale. TheFeds 04:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Classic NOT MEMORIAL. DGG (talk) 05:02, 14 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. While I acknowledge that one of the keep-!votes has a COI as the creator, the delete !votes are not convincing enough to make "delete" the consensus. So this debate has been closed as not gaining consensus to delete (and I want the creator to keep in mind that while this defaults to keep, it is not a keep-close and this article might be subject to a new AfD). Regards So Why 08:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Integrated Project Delivery

Non notable business strategy. Seems to be a type of advertisement. Either way, it does not pass WP:N or WP:RS. Prod was deleted without comment. Delete Undead Warrior (talk) 19:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Undead Warrior (talk) 19:33, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Response from Fred Gibson, Architect: Please refer to the revised page which includes links showing notability. This is a new construction delivery method created by key institutions in the construction industry developed over the last few years inspired by Lean Manufacturing. It is not an advertisement - there is nothing to buy with this. It represents a radical departure from standard construction that has been problematic over the past century and is now coming into use. The reason for my posting this article is to help educate the construction industry on this new development - I am an architect and there is no money in this for me. I will stop building out the article until the notice to delete is removed as I don't want to waste time. If this article doesn't belong in Wikipedia, I don't know what should. Please clarify, after seeing the added links, why there is a reason to delete this article.

The method needs to have been discussed in reliable sources unrelated to the authors of the method. For example, has it been covered in a journal or newspaper? If you can find and add these references then it will go a long way to establishing the notability of the method. Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 23:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Arcane topic to be sure and needs to is screaming to be rewritten in plain English, but notability satisfied per references to industry publications. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete No notability established. The only references are to sources intimately connected to the subject.ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:40, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I've just added "Selected articles on Integrated Project Delivery" which shows the notability of IPD with outside news publications. To get an idea of how notable IPD is, a google search on +"integrated project delivery" returns 64,000+ hits - this is a very big deal in the construction industry. Gibsonf1 (talk) 04:06, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CommentGibsonf1 has now !voted two times. Closing admin is advised to keep that in consideration.Undead Warrior (talk) 07:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He voted twice and is the article's creator and has a clear conflict of interest. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NoteGibsonf1 has revised first !vote to "comment" now. Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 22:26, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think this is notable enough within the construction field to retain. The referencing needs tidying up (i.e., linking the content of the article to each reference clearly) but they look like reasonable sources to me. Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 09:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I thought too. Take a closer look at the references. They come far short of established guidelines.ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, vehemently. This is a project delivery method in which the interests of the primary team members are aligned in such a way that the members can be integrated for optimal project performance resulting in a collaborative, value-based process delivering high-outcome results to the entire building team. People who talk that way shouldn't use the same mouth to eat with. Seriously, does that sentence really say anything, or is it just a vacuous string of abstract nouns and glittering generalities? I call bollocks on this. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment These are not glittering generalities - they are cut and pasted from the industry publications and all have distinct meaning in the field - not emotive. For example "Primary Team Members" = Architect/Contractor/Owner but with this new collaborative method, can also include trade subcontractors and material fabricators and engineers. I'd like to improve the text to make it more readable to a general audience, but the delete tag is preventing me from investing any more time in this. Also, when I address someone's delete claim here and make the change so that the claim no longer holds, the delete claim is not changed. So I'm really not impressed with this process at all.--Gibsonf1 (talk) 16:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about adding some coverage from newspapers and magazines that aren't closely tied to the subject? ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

None of the newspapers or magazines are closely tied to project delivery methods specifically. They are all general Construction Industry publications as the topic is mainly of interest in that industry, with the exception of:

1. Daily Journal of Commerce

2. Philadelphia Business Journal

3. Journal of Public Works Management & Policy

4. Colorado State Government

5. Colorado Real Estate Journal

--Gibsonf1 (talk) 22:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would like to improve the article, but because it is tagged for deletion, I don't want to spend time doing that and have it deleted. I'm not sure what you guys are up to around here, but when something is first put up, and I just started this yesterday, it is called an *early* stage. If you simply delete everything that isn't perfect at the very beginning, and slap a delete tag on it while it's still being worked on, how is anything decent going to get added to wikipedia by industry experts such as myself? I've already spent far more time than I had planned inserting references to prove the method is notable (a google search would have shown this for any interested editor as well). If the delete tag is removed, I would like to make this a very good article which will take many days, far better than the other project delivery methods published already on Wikipedia. Maybe this is the fate of Wikipedia, a slow death due to impatience? --Gibsonf1 (talk) 16:39, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

C'est la vie. It should be deleted as written. If you had any legitimate sources I suspect you would have added them. You've had no problem spending time defending the article here. And writing an article on a subject in which you have an interest is a violation of policy. Wikipedia isn't ad space. So far there is only one keep vote from someone who isn't the article's creator and conflicted by their involvement in the subject. And the keep vote suggests the references "look" good. Which is what i thought too until i had a closer look.ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now I'm fascinated - how are the many periodicals I've referenced, the industry standard groups I've referenced not legitimate sources? What, by your definition, are legitimate sources? Shouldn't you then go and delete all the other project delivery methods on Wikipedia? I am an expert in construction, but I have no financial interest in the method (in the sense that I can expect any reward whatsoever from posting this on Wikipedia) and I was frankly surprised that there was no article in Wikipedia about it given the intense interest this method has spawned. --Gibsonf1 (talk) 18:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You need to look at WP:RS and WP:N. Most project delivery methods are not notable on wikipedia. We are not here to tell how to promote something. Unless that method has had extreme success and or has been featured in multiple reliable sources, it will not be notable. Undead Warrior (talk) 22:31, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you are not familiar with the construction industry as the various project delivery methods have been and continue to be used in billions of dollars of construction. How that is not notable or interesting, especially for people trying to understand how construction works and how you pay for it, is beyond me. The delivery methods are like different kinds of contracts you can set up in a generic way - there is no promotion here, and I don't know how to help you realize that at this point. I truly wonder what the point of Wikipedia is - I thought having topic experts create articles that help educate about those topics is the whole point. This is why I personally use Wikipedia - to get good information. At this point I'm wanting to have nothing to do with the Wikipedia project at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gibsonf1 (talk • contribs) 23:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While it may be interesting, wikipedia is not the place for it. Like I've stated before, we are not here to teach other businesses marketing strategies. If they want to learn a market strategy, they can find a website devoted to that type of stuff. Wikipedia is not here for that purpose. Having good experts create articles is a good thing when the subject of the article is notable. Marketing strategies normally are not notable because they generally do not pass guidelines to be on Wikipedia. Undead Warrior (talk) 14:16, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A project delivery method is simply not a marketing strategy - you're quite wrong on this. Do some homework and you'll find out. It is a method, quite complex, of how construction projects are structured to both complete the work and establish contractual relations between the various parties. It is about execution, nothing at all to do with marketing. Please cite anything meaningful that shows a project delivery method to be a marketing strategy!? Good luck.--Gibsonf1 (talk) 15:05, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Added a section on the history of IPD with references --Gibsonf1 (talk) 05:21, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Added introduction explaining the problems in construction (with citations), the new thinking pioneered by Toyota solving similar problems, and how the IPD method solves these construction problems. --Gibsonf1 (talk) 23:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 06:57, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ITV television presentation

This article has previously been nominated for deletion, originally when it was named ITV Idents and Presentation. Since then, myself and a number of editors have worked to improve the article. However, I don't feel now that it could be fixed to a sufficient standard. I have my doubts about BBC One 'Circle' idents and BBC One 'Rhythm & Movement' idents too, though I think they are in better shape. Personally, I think the content within this article would be better merged into the respective channel articles. Wikiwoohoo (talk) 03:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 00:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge where possible - it should be easy to move sourced prose to the relevant ITV1, ITV2, ITV3 or ITV4 articles. Most of the information about the specifics of each ident as well as images (keeping in mind the concerns with fair use) is largely redundant here because they are best dealt with by specialist sites which deal with television presentation. --tgheretford (talk) 00:20, 6 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, Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I can't imagine anyone finding this information interesting. But if someone wants to read about this they're welcome to it. Seems fairly enyclopedic. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:14, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:25, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep encyclopedic information, probably would be too long in the separate ITV articles, but probably needs to be rewritten (chronologically, instead of separate sections for ITV1,2,3,4) with more references. —Snigbrook 21:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It goes into too much detail to be suitable for a merge to the main ITV article, but could be a sub-article in the same way that History of ITV is. —Snigbrook 21:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A central place like this is best. Not everything has to be interesting in the usual sense--this is reference information. DGG (talk) 05:13, 14 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 13:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Katharine Q. Seelye

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Katharine Q. Seelye

This is a person only notable for one thing. The incident probably should be covered in the Obama/Biden campaign article, if it is important enough to mention at all. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:28, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but without prejudice to re-creation at a later date. The subject has been a New York Times reporter for some years, so she may be notable as a journalist. The current version of the article, however, places WP:UNDUE importance on a blog post which claims she wrote a NYT blog post about a presidential debate based on talking points submitted by the Obama campaign. A look at the blog post, however, shows nothing that looks like plagiarism, just discussion of the same ideas that the Obama campaign was promoting. As it turns out, there wasn't much of a controversy about her blog post, but this article makes it appear as though it was the most notable event in her career. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:08, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to the relevant campaign article, perhaps? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:35, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why merge? Seelye was a New York Times reporter before Barack Obama ever ran for any office. [9] Her biography is not an aspect of the Obama campaign. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - She might very well be notable enough for her own independent article, but she's not notable just because she's a reporter for the New York Times. Her article needs to demonstrate that she's sufficiently notable for a standalone article — but at present it's just a brief mention of one single incident from the 2008 election campaign which does absolutely nothing to demonstrate that she's notable otherwise. Keep if the article can be expanded with additional sources to prove that she's notable beyond one minor bit of political noise, but merge and redirect otherwise. Nobody's saying that her biography is itself an aspect of the Obama campaign — but there's only one verifiable statement in the current version of the article which would make her even minimally notable on its own, and that statement fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E. Bearcat (talk) 03:45, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The fact that she seems to agree with President Obama on some issues is hardly notable. I hope that lots of people do or else they made a big mistake voting for him. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 21:38, 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, Sandstein 19:23, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the excellent rationale by Metropolitan90. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 13:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reason stated above. --T*85 (talk) 05:53, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Earthdawn. MBisanz ^talk 13:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Theran Empire

There are no independent references to demonstrate notability of this fictional location/creation. Notability isn't inherited from Earthdawn. A bold redirect was attempted and reverted, with no other changes to the article. There's nothing here but plot summary and what seems to be some original research in the comparison of parts of this fictional empire to real countries in the world (i.e. no reference to back up these comparison). I don't think there's anything worth merging to the Earthdawn article, hence I recommend straight deletion. --Craw-daddy | T | 15:49, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. —--Craw-daddy | T | 15:49, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge/Delete~~ Redirect as per sensible suggestion below this one. Clearly. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Earthdawn, but notify this on the talk page. Might be appropriate to include some of the information on that page. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The major protagonist of the Earthdawn fantasy setting.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:43, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And that's why it should be included prominently in the Earthdawn article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:05, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a reasonable compromise would be to create an article geopolitics of Earthdawn, and merge this article and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barsaive there? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:13, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unless there's reliable sources for notability, I don't see the point. Right now, neither article under discussion at AfD has any references to demonstrate notability. Creating a new article that is a combination of the two merely pushes the current problem elsewhere. --Craw-daddy | T | 20:18, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Merge to Earthdawn. Edward321 (talk) 00:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, but merge properly. Most of this is relevant content there, and similarly for the other locations. Deal with splitting off an article for the locations subsequently--personally, i don't think there's really enough material. It's attempting to reduce merged content to a single line that has gotten people dubious about such proposed merges. DGG (talk) 05:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 13:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Japunga

This article has no references and has a questionable external link to a Myspace page. The www.japunga.com website showed absolutely nothing except for an unhelpful Flash animation and a Google search returned only their albums. Also no hits in Google News. Two of the band members' articles are redlinked, one (Luke Lawrence) links to a motorcycle Grand Prix racer and one is unlinked. Although it 'received considerable airplay' on radio stations Triple J and Triple M, I couldn't find any mention of the band. In the three songs in the 'Discography' section, 'Beginnings' links to a disambig link, (which it isn't listed in), Light at Days End and Souls Conflicting have redlinks, possibly indicating they're hoaxes.

With this nomination, I'll also nominate

Light at Days End and
Souls Conflicting

because they haven't been notable recently, are hoaxes (redlinked) and have no references. ÆÅM «(fætsøn!) 11:13, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:52, 5 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, ÆÅM «(fætsøn!) 07:51, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is mostly encyclopedic and subject appears to be notable. Long history of article suggests links are no longer good and need updating. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:47, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Japunga. These two support claims of airplay and charting [10] [11]. Two more links [12] [13]. Some quotes shown here indicate other reviews. Not quite enough in itself but should help, two albums on Modern Music (who have also released The Butterfly Effect, Small Mercies, The Red Paintings, Devolved, Amity Affliction, Melodyssey). As for the suggestion the albums might be hoaxes cos they have red links. Very odd leap there. Albums do exist. Notability is also not about recently. Redirect albums, no refs. Duffbeerforme (talk) 10:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the band for passing WP:MUSIC#C1, and merge the 2 albums per WP:MUSIC#Albums..."..with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article". Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 11:12, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 05:35, 16 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 J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 03:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Motor Racing Club Ewell F.C.

Possibly non-notable football club. I declined this speedy, but it's borderline, so I'm AFDing it. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 19:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. For English football clubs, only those playing at level 10 or above are considered notable enough. This club plays at much lower level Julius Sahara (talk) 20:45, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable at all, this is just a pub/parks team, declining of the speedy was very generous indeed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree with ChrisTheDude. Paste (talk) 21:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per ChrisTheDude. – Pee Jay 21:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly fails our notabillity-creteria. abf /talk to me/ 22:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable at all. Giant Snowman 01:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable club. Giants2008 (17-14) 06:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with above, Govvy (talk) 14:21, 15 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 13:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joyce Farrell

Notability not asserted. Article was originally nominated for speedy delete, but that was denied by another editor. Farrell is a former college instructor who now works for a private instructional facility (Cengage), and the page was authored by Cengage (talk · contribs), representing possible spam, and definite conflict of interest. Author's extensive writings appear to be basically instructional media created for Cengage. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:PROF and no independent reliable sources to establish notability.--Boffob (talk) 18:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable Hazel77 ^talk 19:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delet not notable at all. abf /talk to me/ 22:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cengage is not a minor company--its a major educational publisher, one of the largest: recent reorgnization/split of part of the Thomson-Gale publishing conglomerate, which will publish educational and reference material from the former publishing imprints:Brooks/Cole, Course Technology, Delmar, Gale, Heinle, Schirmer, South-Western, Wadsworth and Houghton-Mifflin College Division,, all well known in the respective areas, andabout 650 smaller imprints, once most of them independent ocmpanies, some important in their fields. . To say something is educational material created for Cengage is as significant as to say its a reference book for Gale, or a health science college text from Wadsworth, or a undergraduate text from Brooks/Cole, or a research level reference database by Gale --all of them major professional and academic imprints. The name is unfamiliar, but thats a combination of publishers buying parts of each other and decisions to adopt new brand names that nobody recognizes. Now, some of what Cengage does is fairly low level, including the production ofc ustomized textbooks for individual instructors, but this can not be assumed. We need to look at what she actually wrote.

As far as I can see these are widely used undergraduate textbooks. There are three of them present in over 200 US libraries; most have gone into as many as 8 multiple editions. The standard for WP:PROF accepts writing of widely used textbooks as notability, and she qualifies here. Given the reluctance of libaries to buy rapidly changing undergraduate texts, holdings as wide as these show widespread use. I consider this a careless nomination, without any attempt to see what the publisher actually was, or to check the actual books. COI is cause for looking carefully, but not for deletion. As for the PR guy who did the article, I'll advise him appropriately to him to try to prevent his messing up this way again. Perhaps he knows some reviews he can add to further show the notability. DGG (talk) 07:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DGG. I agree completely with his remarks on COI. --Crusio (talk) 08:04, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As noted by DGG, passes WP:PROF criterion #4, note 12 (books that are widely used as textbooks (or as a basis for a course) at multiple institutions of higher education). For example, see the results of s search for syllabi listing her books.--Eric Yurken (talk) 17:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG and Eric Yurken's comments above, based on criterion 4 of WP:PROF. Needs clean-up, though. Nsk92 (talk) 20:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 05:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. --T*85 (talk) 05:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 13:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Microphone gaffe

This term is never really used to refer to an independent concept. The article just gives the trivial definition that a "Microphone gaffe" is a gaffe at a microphone, and them follows to an unnecyclopedic list of funny events. It belongs to a blog, not an encyclopedia. Damiens.rf 18:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. Independent concept is absent from reliable sources. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:41, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable, encyclopaedic concept. Article isn't the greatest, mostly composed of a list, but effectively "start" class. A microphone gaff is certainly not a dependent concept, dependent of what? WilyD 18:49, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I mean it is nothing more than one would expect from the junction of these two words (what is not the case of "toilet humor", for instance). Nobody talks about the concept of "Microphone gaffe". This article is doomed to be an unnencyclopedic list following one or two paragraphs of original research.
Delete - WP:DICDEF followed by indiscriminate examples.--Boffob (talk) 19:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a term that is certainly used in the mainstream media. ^[1] and ^[2] and ^[3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theseeker4 (talk • contribs)
Delete. No different to "cock up", "balls up", "blond moment" or any other conjunction of two words. Just a dictionary definition. Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 23:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

well, at least it's not profane. the term itself. Headlikeawhole (talk) 01:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It may be that a term other than "microphone gaffe" would be more appropriate, but the concept (the accidental dissemination to the public of what a person intended to say in private) is notable. The article is well-sourced, something that we look for in Wikipedia articles. As the cited news stories show, it is noteworthy -- sometimes front page news-- when a prominent individual is "being himself". George W. Bush, when running for president in 2000, generally did not describe a person as an "asshole" in speeches, debates, interviews, etc., so it's not surprising that it made the news when it was caught on tape. In an ideal world, people wouldn't consider someone's poor choice of words to be notable... but we don't live in an ideal world. Mandsford (talk) 02:42, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep Notable media phenomenon. The genre itself is notable, as are the examples. DGG (talk) 07:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Rename if terminology is problematic. move to "Open-mic gaffe" probly. the thing is real. let's name it properly. I'm not too sure about deleting a buncha content that clearly describes a phenomenon that is used in very high stakes mass communications contexts. sure, sometimes these examples are tabloidy, but when it comes to very powerful elected officials and thier campaign surrogates, this is a technique our leaders use to talk to us when they need the guise of supposed privacy. hehe. those guys are so clever. and jesse jackson was one of the best when he helped/hurt the prez-elect. see ya. Headlikeawhole (talk) 01:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

see also http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Microphone_gaffe&diff=233143985&oldid=230922388, for a little explanation of relevance, tho maybe not all the content in this diff should be in the article, but -I'm sayin learn abou twhat the thing is. Headlikeawhole (talk) 01:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a notable phenomenon and discussing a notable phenomenon requires inclusion of relevant examples. All the examples mentioned are well-sourced and made by public figures. - Mgm|^(talk) 18:58, 16 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 13:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James B. Golden

Biography on non-notable author (fails WP:BIO) with written by an editor with a Confilct of interest. Subject is "most famous" for winning a non-notable poetry award for his (to date) only published work. All the references are linked to the subject's personal blog (Fails WP:RS and WP:COI once again) or commercial websites, urging prospective viewers to purchase the book (Fails WP:LINKSPAM and WP:PROMOTION). None of the information within the article is appears within the external links, which only further worsens the WP:OR violation. Flewis^(talk) 10:01, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment = The book is published by iUniverse, which is a self-publishing corporation. The book is available through Barnes and Noble online because B&N is an investor in iUniverse. Searching for "Langston Hughes Literary Award" "California State University" "Pan-African Studies Writing Program" on Google turns up only this Wiki page. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 11:10, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further research = The Langston Hughes literary awards in 2008 went to John Mark Connolly in fiction and Stephen Bunch in poetry[14]. If there is a Langston Hughes award given by CSU-Northridge, it's not distinguished, since Google doesn't turn up a trace of it.[15]. The Golden Machine is James Golden's weblog. Kapu-Sens is a small literary review put out by the program he attends (or attended, it's not clear). The list of editors for the Hip Hop Think Tank Journal doesn't show Golden. His attendance at the National Council for Black Studies Conference was as one of several speakers on a panel. (Heck, I've been a speaker at a panel! Where's my wiki article? :) He's not on the list of notable speakers at the 2008 National Hip Hop Political Convention[16], but he could have spoken there as a non-notable person. (Although if the groups he works with consider him non-notable...) Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 01:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete = I think I've convinced myself that this article fails our notability and verifiability requirements. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 01:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:N and WP:V. Themfromspace (talk) 20:34, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~ Barely makes the notable cut. Article needs improvement. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:40, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was wrong. Not notable enough. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:50, 14 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 17:50, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:N and WP:V. Paste (talk) 17:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete may be a speedy g11 Duffbeerforme (talk) 16:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 05:37, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. --T*85 (talk) 05:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Sort of an unlikely seeming article I admit, but hey, we just do what the WP:RS tell us to do, and a solid consensus to keep developed as improvements were made. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 22:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

88888 Lights Out

Wikipedia si not the place to spread your campaigns Damiens.rf 17:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable environmental campaign, does not deserve an article. Theseeker4 (talk) 17:47, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable environmental campaign. Paste (talk) 17:48, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (G11) for polluting Wikipedia with mountains of SPAM. MuZemike (talk) 18:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as blatant advertising.--Boffob (talk) 19:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The problem I have is that the article has sources that soundly pass WP:RS. The current article is marginal and a bit junk, I agree, but it is salvageable and is certainly not speedy material. I have never heard of it, and the only reason I can possibly think it is notable is because three different publications think so, and they are cited in this article, including http://www.indiatimes.com and http://www.thehindu.com. Do I think turning your lights off for 8 minutes to call attention to global warming is tree hugging foolishness? Yes. Yes I do. But my opinion isn't the issue, the sources are. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 19:30, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please note that I put my money where my mouth was, stubbed it, organized the citations a little better, removed the peacock terms and turned it into an article about an event that was covered by some newspapers. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 19:42, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources for this article only really mention that the event will happen, there's really nothing about its significance or notability. The article itself doesn't really address this either. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 21:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That is very misleading. The articles that are used as sources, all 4, are completely about the event. They are not just mentioning it in passing, nor quick blurbs saying "this will happen at $x date". This one is after the event. The articles are fairly in depth and only about this topic. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 22:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - And that one is not used as a reference in the article. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 22:59, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually it is, under "Press". Keep in mind, I just walked in and starting fixing it. That link was already there tho. I am not saying this is the most important thing since the compact fluorescent bulb, I am just saying it passes general notability by the fact that several newspapers have talked about it. The article *was* more of a mess than it is now, and now is what should be considered. It is sourced. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 23:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Clarify It was a source, but not an inline citation. Now it is an inline citation. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 23:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I'm trusting in Dennis Brown, there probably are non-english sources, and there is no reason to exclude them. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or possibly merge I see a newspaper talking about a event in one particular building or housing complex--everything else in prospective. I consider this essentially in the nature of PR and ONEEVENT--had it been notable there would have been very much more coverage. Trivial in the absence of better sources. Arguing from the absence of sources is difficult, but for something where there is much publicity before an event and very little afterwards, the logical conclusion is the event was not of any note. Even a good newspaper can be conned into repeating public relations.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) DGG (talk) 02:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would much prefer this article merged and integrated into a broader article about environmentalism and environmental conservation in India. But the references are substantial and the Hindu deemed the event "a success". So based on the notability guidelines it pains me to say the event was notable as demonstrated by mainstream media coverage. Prehaps if the event is repeated it can be included in a better more comprehensive article that wouldn't be such a one event type outlier, but it happened, people covered it substantially. And I it's too soon, I think, to know if it will fade into irrelevancy, but as it stands now it was notable. It could in fact be a notable start to a more notable movement or movements.ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:59, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- They are planning 99999 Lights Out, and I would strongly suggest that both were merged into a single article and didn't have their own articles. If someone were to suggest a proper article for this to be merged into, I would be very open minded. My concern is that we don't lose the information, as there are some good sources here. I fully understand why people had reservations with the article before, but a few people have put some energy into a WP:HEY job, and the information is worth keeping in one form or another. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 01:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article has been substantially improved since it was first nominated. It is not an advertisement and includes substantial mainstream news media coverage establishing the notability of the event and movement. It will hopefully be itnegrated into an Indian Environmentalism or similar article, I couldn't find any in existence. So deleting this article about the movement's notable beginnings would prevent its later being integrated into a broader and even more notable article about various issues and approaches on the sub-continent (the world's second most populous with over a billion people).ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:32, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow You certainly finished what I started, and did a much better job. (note: Auric did some great work, too.) I would hope those who previously wanted to delete the article would take a look and reevaluate their !votes, and hope the closing admin does the same with diffs. Now that it is integrated into Project India, and Environmentalism, I can it it eventually either be expanded or merged to be the start of something I didn't realize we needed when this started. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 02:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the addition of sources, content and context by Dennis, Auric, and ChildofMidnight. Well done, and a nice rebuke to persons who insist that an article is "way beyond fixing". Mandsford (talk) 02:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
the place to merge if one wanted to merge would be the sponsor, Exnora International -- which is a very spammy article that could use some attention--and some non-spammy content. I continue not to see enough here to justify an article. This is all the more true if it is one occurrence of what is intended to be an annual event. DGG (talk) 02:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Merge to Exnora International. Michellecrisp (talk) 14:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If this was merged, this article would need to become a redirect to satisfy the GFDL. As a compromise, I think this would be ok. Not my first choice, but a reasonable compromise. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 15:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose the merger. The other article is a mess. This article has demonstrated notability based on numerous media accounts including assessments of the event's outcome (I have a few more to add, but I haven't had a chance). It may be a "merge" candidate in the future. But not to that article and not now. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:58, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You are right that the other article is a complete mess. Ironic that it is in worse shape than this article was when it started AFD. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 19:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not sufficient evidence of notability here for a standalone article and I see no real reason for a formal merge. Expunge it. Eusebeus (talk) 05:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge Evidently notable so deletion is not appropriate. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:50, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as is appropriately externally referenced to show notability under Wiki guidelines and shows no evidence of COI in edited body of text. DiverScout (talk) 13:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 05:41, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 05:41, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because it has substantial coverage which continues after the one event and looks forward to the next one. But it should be part of an article about the lights out campaigns around the world, not just discussed in an Indian context. http://news.google.com/archivesearch?hl=en&um=1&tab=wn&q=%22lights+out++campaign%22&ie=UTF-8 Juzhong (talk) 15:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This was a symbolic campaign and there was noticeable coverage on Indian Newspapers and television channels. From what I saw, I think it was neither limited to India, nor did it originate here. I remember watching some clippings from Australian cities too. Later, this same article should be used for similar events in future and then article name can be changed as appropriate. Right now, the article looks good with references in place.--GDibyendu (talk) 06:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 13:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PinStruck.com

Unsure of notability - appears to be an advertisement. Sources/refs are the company's own website. Oscarthecat (talk) 16:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was just beginning to create the page. I was hoping to document the history of the web site and it's parent company. Speedy deletion removed the content before I could even add the hangon tag or reply. -- User:Donjrude 11:40am (ET)

Ok, I am beginning to read through the article criteria and speedy deletion info. Also, looking at the page history I think the speedy deletion was added before I had even saved the initial content. I was trying to build the page with a style a content similar to Cafepress or pets.com. I will update the talk page with more updates as I explore the article criteria. -- User:Donjrude 11:56am (ET)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 17:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article is too 'advert like' and site appears to have very little if any claim to notability. Paste (talk) 17:47, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (G11/A7), take your pick - spam or no indication of notability. I would recommend that the creator userfy the article so it can be worked on until it is suitable for inclusion in the mainspace. MuZemike (talk) 18:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - advertisement like, not notable _David ^WS _(contribs) 19:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as blatant advertisement. Also, no reliable independent source for notability.--Boffob (talk) 19:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, with current content it's not very notable. I completely disagree about blatant advertising (see cafepress) I don't really understand what is meant by userfy (yet), but I would appreciate other constructive criticism of this nature, rather than delete. -- Donjrude (talk) 21:23, 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 speedy delete per A7 Nancy ^talk 18:41, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Barber II

Essay/resume, no clear notability. Oscarthecat (talk) 16:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7. So tagged. No actual assertion of notability, and references are from Wikipedia and not exactly relevant. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 17:14, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy A7/G11 No need to bring this to AfD. RayAYang (talk) 17:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Simply a personal page. Wikipedia is not a MySpace. All the sources go to Wikipedia and they're not even about him anyway (ex: the sentence Following 3 years of intensive education in engineering he traveled to Mongolia" is merely sourced by the Wikipedia article for Mongolia, merely citing that Mongolia exists). Also never establishes notablility. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 17:53, 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 keep. MBisanz ^talk 13:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Silvergate

Declined prod; WP:NOT a web host, nor a business directory. No third-party references. KurtRaschke (talk) 16:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reject as premature I declined the speedy, not prod, as I saw an underconstruction tag on it placed by the ed involved, & the article didn'tl ook altogether hopeless.. I think such tags should be respected for a few days when they aren't clearly obstructive. As it turns out one of the links given is from the major magazine in the subject & written by the ed in chief of the magazine. The author didn't know to format it accordingly, so I'm doing that for him. Articles need a chance to develop. Tagging an article of this sort for deletion four minutes after an article is started is in my opinion usually unconstructive, as is placing an afd in the presence of the underconstruction tag one hour afterwards. (I see the nominator remembers it as placing a prod; had he in fact done so, it would have been reasonable). And one of the refs in a signif. 3rd party reference from the leading magazine in the field--it was just not displayed right till I fixed it. DGG (talk) 16:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No opinion on the merits of this nomination, but I don't think it's premature. I think that Wikipedia articles have to meet standards before they enter the main article namespace. Userspace is for articles that aren't there yet; i.e. there should be no formal "grace period" for articles that can't hack it. Individual users/admins might extend that as a courtesy, but enshrining that as policy would have very ugly consequences. RayAYang (talk) 17:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not expecting perfection ab initio has been enshrined as policy — it being our Wikipedia:Editing policy — since 2001. It doesn't seem to have had the disastrous consequences that you allude to. Uncle G (talk) 18:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh, perfection isn't required. But things like notability, verifiability, etc., should be present, even if not necessarily with all the footnotes. RayAYang (talk) 19:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Checking for verifibility has, ever since the first version of the verifiability policy that MartinHarper wrote in 2003, involved editors who think that something is unverifiable looking for sources themselves to check this. The same goes for notability, per Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Nomination. You'll find the procedure at User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage#What to do, now, but it, too, has been our procedure all along. Again per our very own Wikipedia:Editing policy, this is a collaboratively written project, and editors are not supposed to regard looking for sources when checking verifiability and notability, and indeed writing the encyclopaedia, as Somebody Else's Problem. Uncle G (talk) 21:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - None of which precludes nominating an article after it comes out, if the nom feels the article doesn't satisfy our criteria. It seems (glancing at the discussion) that this article will be kept, but there are certainly articles that should, and are, nominated within seconds of creation, and I don't see anything wrong with that. RayAYang (talk) 23:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notability established the usual way. DGG thought's about the undesirability of bitiness are well worth listening too. Wily D 17:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per give an article a chance - DGG is right. Article was created today. Trying to delete an article so early-on only serves to bite the newbies. MuZemike (talk) 18:41, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Many inquiries regarding demise of LGB addressed. Could use more details -- definately KEEP. Links to Wikipedia regarding this information. Wikipedia credibility very positive when current information is available. DGG is right., 13 November 2008 (UTC)←Ma.rocha (talk) 19:25, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:59, 14 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 13:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nestor Papoutsis

User:84.191.209.114 placed a speedy tag on this article citing the following reason:

Hiya, I just deleted this article from the German Wikipedia - apparently it is a fake entry, translated into several languages by one and the same user. I'm not going to work my way through all the different deletion procedures, so I'm putting this on speedy deletion - feel free to open a regular discussion if you feel like it.

I don't know much about European basketball but a Google search for "Nestor Papoutsis" basketball -Wikipedia did not look promising. There is a YouTube video of a guy with that name nailing a three-pointer, but he does not appear to be 6ft 7.5in as the article claims. Most of the rest of the results from the Google search look like Wikipedia mirrors as well. ... discospinster _talk 16:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 17:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 17:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no WP:RS WP:IS. Tosqueira (talk) 03:39, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As fake. Investigate as vandalism. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:15, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This list of Alba Berlin players doesn't mention him. His former team Hellas Berlin doesn't seem to be notable either, btw. --Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 13:06, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. —Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 21:34, 15 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. Everyone appears to agree that this is advertising, or nonsense. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Numoquest

Minimal context, no references, reads like an advertisement. KurtRaschke (talk) 15:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no reliable source to establish notability of whatever that nonsense is.--Boffob (talk) 15:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete borders on speedy as nonsense. Zero Google news hits, google hits appear to be advertisements, and this article, nothing else. Article does not clearly establish what Numoquest is, let alone establish notability, so delete. Theseeker4 (talk) 15:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My delete is stronger than yours - Patent nonsense and/or hoax. Numbers with human characteristics? Come on... _David ^WS _(contribs) 19:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - Patent nonsense. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete WP:CSD#G11, blatant advertising. So tagged. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:12, 14 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. G7 per author request —Travis ^talk 15:40, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zaandvort sign

Contested prod. I believe this is a complete hoax, as the term "Zaandvort sign" returns no results. No reliable sources provided, no evidence of existence found. TN‑X-Man 15:14, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G7 Author placed G7 tag on page. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 15:34, 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. MBisanz ^talk 13:25, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strifer

Unsigned band, was eliminated on first day of a reality show. No sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 14:49, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No claim of notability that passes WP:MUSIC so clear deletion candidate. Theseeker4 (talk) 14:59, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notability established the usual way. MUSIC supplements N, not superseeds it. Not an exceptional case that requires overruling usual practice. Wily D 17:50, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the sources then if they meet WP:N? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the article[17]. Wily D 18:47, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's just one source. Do you really think one source is enough when no more seem to exist? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other sources exist, though I haven't seen any as comprehensive. Yes, I think one high quality source is enough, but you can verify some bits through other sources [18][19] and so forth. Wily D 00:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:58, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see substantial coverage from reliable sources. I see 1 decent article, 1 press release, and 1 mention. Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:NOTE. Even with this second article from The Union, I don't see it. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 19:16, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article cited by Wily establishes that the band was going to compete in a reality tv show, not that the band is notable. And as for the other "sources" offered, no comment.ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet notability for music--Omarcheeseboro (talk) 20:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 05:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've added more sources just now: There are actually four articles in The Union that either are entirely about the band (3) or have a brief mention of them (1). Of course, WP:N notability would be more strongly established with a range of news sources, rather than just this one local paper. But WP:N allows the use of local sources because Wikipedia is both a general and a specialized encyclopedia. The coverage is not widespread in this case, but I would say it's a weak keep. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. StarM 21:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Management of First Affiliated Hospital

A thoroughly unsuitable topic for a separate article that can never stand on its own. We don't do "managemement of" articles for organizations and companies, as such topics are almost never sufficiently notable in and of themselves. In this case all the info contained in this article is already contained in First Affliated Hospital of Xinjiang Medical University so this one is really an unneeded content fork on a subject of no independent notability. There is nothing to merge here and the title is a highly unlikely search term for a possible redirect. Hence delete. Nsk92 (talk) 14:47, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Nsk92 (talk) 15:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. — Frank | talk 15:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - almost CSD candidate under both G11 and A7. As nom states, this isn't an encyclopedic topic; none of the individuals has notability, and pulling them together in one article doesn't confer it either. Frank | talk 15:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I concur with the nominator. The information is entirely redundant with First Affliated Hospital of Xinjiang Medical University, with most of it copied verbatim. There is in fact, very little justification for the section to exist in the hospital article let alone having a stand alone article. -- Whpq (talk) 15:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. None of the people listed pass the notability requirements.--Boffob (talk) 15:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not really an "indiscriminate collection of information", more like a fork, and excessive granularity on a relatively ephemeral subject: the management board of the hospital is likely to experience turnover long before the article is updated. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom. Not notable Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is on the board of governors of the hospital may be my name of article is incorrect but the content is accurate.BurhanAhmed (talk • contribs) 05:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The name of the article has absolutely nothing to do with the reasons for deleting it and nobody has questioned the accuracy of the information provided. The main issue is notability of the subject matter and the secondary issue is duplication of information already contained in another article. This article is nothing but a administration personell list of a hospital and such articles are simply not suitable for an encyclopedia no matter how they are named. Even for major organizations, such as big corporations or major universities such articles are not done: at the most there deserves to be a brief mention of the main administrative officers in the main articles about such organizations. The only exceptions I can think of are governments of countries. Nsk92 (talk) 10:17, 14 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 Hellyeah. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 22:38, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Below the Belt (Hellyeah DVD)

This article is short, has no references, and isn't notable. Almax999 (talk) 14:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Weak Keep Since the band Hellyeah is notable, according to WP:MUSIC any albums officially released "may be notable". The band is clearly notable, and I believe the album may be notable based on web hits. Article being short and lacking reverences are not reasons to delete, but reasons to improve/tag for expansion. Since the band is clearly notable, and the DVD in question seems to satisfy WP:MUSIC, I am weakly voting to keep. Theseeker4 (talk) 14:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect It states in WP:MUSIC that articles unlikely to grow beyond stub status should be merged. However, all that is worth keeping in this article is already mentioned on the page for Hellyeah. This article is rarely edited and has met stub status for several months, almost a year really; even if it wasn't marked before it still met stub status. It doesn't even have a list of the titles of each chapter on it's page. Redirection is the best choice for this article.--65.2.112.212 (talk) 01:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Band being notable doesn't mean every album they produce is notable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:24, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely. There hasn't been any notability to this article in over a year. Besides, I can give an example of an album that isn't notable and doesn't have it's own article: 3 Doors Down's first self-titled release in 1997. Not every album in Wikipedia warrants an article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.2.40.164 (talk) 05:32, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 05:44, 16 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 13:25, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paul J. Alessi

AfDs for this article:

No evidence of multiple important role. lacks coverage in indepentent reliable sources. made with COI Duffbeerforme (talk) 13:48, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete fails ENTERTAINER. ApprenticeFan (talk) 14:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ENTERTAINER. No notable films that he has had a major role in, and no awards at a major festival, etc. Failing WP:Entertainer is not, however, grounds for speedy delete. Theseeker4 (talk) 14:48, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per argument by Theseeker4 .--Boffob (talk) 15:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:57, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:57, 14 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 13:25, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Surf's Up (TV Series)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Surf's Up (TV Series)

Orphaned hoax article. treelo _radda 13:48, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 13:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete. can't find any evidence of this on google, which there should be based on the contents of the article. Jessi1989 (talk) 14:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Absolutely no indication on the web that this show exists as described in the article. Theseeker4 (talk) 14:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It ain't on IMDB, it's definitely a hoax. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 21:30, 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 keep. MBisanz ^talk 13:25, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excalibur: Morgana's Revenge

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Excalibur: Morgana's Revenge

No assertion of notability (WP:N). The provided references are all self-published (WP:SPS) or otherwise unreliable (WP:Reliable sources). Also appears to have been written by someone on the development team, thus presenting WP:NPOV issues. Marasmusine (talk) 13:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. Marasmusine (talk) 13:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, trawling through the usual download/directory sites, I found one (1) possible source for WP:N at The Mac Observer. Personally I prefer multiple sources. If anyone else can find some significant coverage I'll gladly withdraw my nomination (in which case I'll gut the article and start it from scratch.) Marasmusine (talk) 13:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notability can be established the usual way. No need to call for an exception in this case. Wily D 14:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no significant coverage by reliable source to establish notability.--Boffob (talk) 16:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The macobserver reference is enough for notability, especially considering the information it gives on the history of the game. They're a reliable source for this. DGG (talk) 05:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep InsideMacGames ("the largest and oldest Macintosh gaming publication" per WP) covered E:MR extensively.134.117.137.57 (talk) 06:39, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have InsideMacGames published anything other than press releases / emails from Bill Catambay? Otherwise it's not particularly useful for the WP:GNG. Marasmusine (talk) 21:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. Horselover Frost (talk) 08:35, 14 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. WP:SNOW. Discussion of policy should continue elsewhere. Potentially a Nomination Withdrawn, in good faith to the nom. (non-admin closure) DARTH PANDA ^duel 06:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WMRO (AM)

I want to put this article forward to ascertain whether or not ALL licensed radio stations are in fact notable and worthy of inclusion. This article is in all likelihood created by one of the husband and wife team that run this very local AM radio station. It has no third party refs/links and I can not see how it is in any way notable. Paste (talk) 13:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- I'm happy to withdraw this nomination if it is the policy of Wikipedia that the mere fact it is a radio station makes it notable and it seems that the other contributors to this debate feel the same. I must say though that I am incredulous that this is the case but I guess I'll have to be the odd one out here Paste (talk) 08:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's been the way it's been treated. To answer the question, it's somewhat difficult to find the commentary, and it's not so much a strict rule as it is a "common outcome". This is from [20]: "Licensed radio and TV stations are notable if they broadcast over the air and originate at least a portion of their programming schedule in their own studios. Lower power radio stations limited to a small neighborhood, such as Part 15 operations in the United States or stations with a VF# callsign in Canada, are not inherently notable, although they may be kept if some real notability can be demonstrated. Stations that only rebroadcast the signal of another station should be redirected to their programming source (e.g. CICO-TV is a redirect to TVOntario.) Internet radio stations are notable if they can demonstrate a clear and verifiable cultural notability or influence. AOL Radio and WOXY, for instance, are clearly notable, but your own personal Peercast stream with three listeners is not.

Satellite radio channels on XM, Sirius or WorldSpace may be acceptable, but if they merely relay an existing conventional broadcast service such as Fox News or Deutsche Welle, then the satellite service should be written about as part the existing service's article rather than as a separate article.

Television series broadcast nationally by a major network or produced by a major studio are notable." The concept, as I understand it, is that governments regulate the use of the airwaves, and decide whether a a station should be licensed. In the United States, it's the FCC does this. Once a station is granted the right to broadcast in a particular range, the common outcome so far has been that it does not have to justify its importance further through newspaper coverage. In some cases, such "inherent notability" is presumed in order to avoid notability debates. As another example, a Congressman from Illinois in 1920 may not have done anything significant, but the question is made moot by a guideline. In this case, this is a "common outcome", not a set guideline, but there are some things-- high schools, radio stations, elected officials-- that are normally given a presumption. I hope that helps. Mandsford (talk) 14:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strongest Possible Keep. Its a radio station. Its very much encyclopedic.--CastAStone /^{/₵₳$↑₳}^{₴₮ʘ№€} 22:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Tone of nomination demonstrates that this was nominated to prove a point. Nyttend (talk) 01:32, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think that the nominator admitted that the nomination was made "to ascertain whether or not ALL licensed radio stations are in fact notable and worthy of inclusion; he/she might not have been aware of the admonition against making a nomination in order to prove a point, and testing the rules with a nomination is similar. Anyway, now you know more about the policy concerning licensed radio stations and the policy concerning WP:POINT. If you agree, now, that Wikipedia has a policy on station articles, withdrawing the nomination would seem to be the appropriate thing to do. Many a time, I've had to say "I stand corrected", and I think that's true of all of us. We learn the rules by participating in Wikipedia. Mandsford (talk) 03:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The station is notable. Alansohn (talk) 05:24, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Nomination made only to make a point. All stations are notable, period, and even if the article was written by station staff, at least it gives a foundation to go from so we can fix it further. Nate • (chatter) 06:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have reduced the promotional tone of the article considerably so all concerns have hopefully been addressed. Nate • (chatter) 06:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 12:55, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Government licensed full-power broadcast radio stations are notable, procedural keep in any case as nominator is making a WP:POINT. - Dravecky (talk) 14:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This is a classic case of one of the problems with Wikipedia, if I had not mentioned that I wanted 'to ascertain whether or not ALL licensed radio stations are in fact notable' and merely put the article forward for discussion all would be well. The outcome would be the same but I wouldn't have editors like Dravecky talking about 'procedural keeps' due to WP:POINT. I have been active on Wikipedia for over two years and have never heard of WP:POINT and now having read it I take a very dim view of the fact that I am being accused of disrupting Wikipedia or whatever phrase it uses. How about accepting the fact that some people contribute a lot to Wikipedia without knowing about every policy and guideline and are in fact acting in good faith. Anyhow as I stated earlier today (see above) I'm happy to withdraw this AfD. Paste (talk) 14:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply My intent was certainly not to accuse you of anything. I was merely responding to your stated intent and reasoning for nominating this article for deletion. In any case, if you will review the article as it now stands, I think you will find it much improved over the state you found it in yesterday. - Dravecky (talk) 15:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reply Thank you, I appreciate your comment. The article is much improved but then I never thought that it was a bad article, I just cannot understand how such a small, local radio station is in any way notable, I disagree with the whole premise that ALL radio stations are notable, but as I said I seem to be in a minority of one. Paste (talk) 15:40, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand where you're coming from, Paste. I can only say what the rationale is for the policy. When you get right down to it, few radio stations, high schools, incorporated villages, etc., would be able to win a notability debate based on significant coverage outside the local area. By nature, almost all radio stations have to be local, since their maximum power is limited to 50,000 watts. Most people can't name any radio stations that broadcast in, say, Los Angeles --- and in fact, in L.A., most people don't know the stations; they tune in to a format they prefer, and might be reminded that they're listening to "KISS 105". How many listeners they have depends, in large part, on how many people live within the range of the signal, along with how many other stations are competing in the same area. As such, Bucksnort County might have only a couple of stations, whereas Los Angeles County would have lots of stations. However, even a small radio station or high school is a significant part of the community where it operates. Luckily, there are relatively few things that are considered "inherently notable", and this is one of them. Mandsford (talk) 18:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is wrong to say that testing a deletion to see what the unwritten rules are violated WP:POINT. If we never test to see if consensus is the same as it used to be, we will never know if consensus has changed. Nominating this was fine, deleting it is wrong.--CastAStone /^{/₵₳$↑₳}^{₴₮ʘ№€} 22:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which "unwritten rules" are you referring to exactly? Mandsford (talk) 01:09, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The ones regarding the notability of radio stations...--CastAStone /^{/₵₳$↑₳}^{₴₮ʘ№€} 19:57, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:NME guidelines, among others, are not unwritten. - Dravecky (talk) 20:57, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Wow, I predate that guideline. Still, the radio part of that basically says nothing at all.~~--CastAStone /^{/₵₳$↑₳}^{₴₮ʘ№€} 05:50, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's an Essay, not a guideline. It carries no weight whatsoever.--CastAStone /^{/₵₳$↑₳}^{₴₮ʘ№€} 05:51, 16 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. While Mvuijlst might be correct about their assertion of notability for this actress, even he cannot provide any reliable sources. Consensus is to delete because of this. This also means that consensus does not prohibit a new article on the subject if reliable sources establish the subject's notability. So Why 07:35, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Busty Dusty

No reliable sources, and doesn't pass the criteria at WP:PORNBIO. Only trivial coverage found on Google. Epbr123 (talk) 11:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I know this performer exists, but I doubt she meets any WP:PORNBIO standard. / edg ☺ ☭ 13:42, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This person meets none of the WP:PORNO criteria, so non-notable and delete. Theseeker4 (talk) 15:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you specify where WP:PORNO lists notability criteria? -- Mvuijlst (talk) 00:20, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil (talk) 16:23, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't establish notability.ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Clearly meet WP:PORNBIO. It may not be easy to verify because she mostly stopped performing in the middle 1990s, but Busty Dusty was, ahem, huge. Or at least big. She was a trendsetter, being among the first porn stars with ever-increasing breast sizes. Busty Dusty has been featured in different notable mainstream media (a.o. Jerry Springer, Richard Bey, Howard Stern), and in magazines (layboy, Hustler, Jugs, etc.). -- Mvuijlst (talk) 00:20, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- For future reference: found article apparently written by Dusty herself here; verified the information there using Google, a.o. via her old agency -- Mvuijlst (talk) 00:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable sources at all. krimpet ✽ 06:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 13:21, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thumpamon Sree Vadakkum Nathan

~~No clear notability~~ Lack of verifiable sources, per below. Oscarthecat (talk) 10:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not a single google hit besides here. Mangoe (talk) 14:01, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Someone from Kerala should be able to let us know if this is notable. Oscarthecat, notability is established. If it's as old as claimed the temple will be notable; please change the reason to lack of verifiable sources. Mangoe, a lack of Google hits does not imply non-notability. The name is the English transliteration of a Malayalam term, (the language spoken in Kerala). Therefore, with transliterations, there can be a whole slew of different spellings that Google cannot fuzzy match. This is further compounded as the name is long. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked User:Tinucherian and User:Thunderboltz to weigh in on this article. They are both from Kerala and sufficiently experienced on Wikipedia policies (to avoid future allegations of ballot stuffing). =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment : I couldnt find anything other than http://www.hindu.com/2006/07/25/stories/2006072513340300.htm to which the temple is referred as Thumpamon Vadakkumnatha Temple . Other combinations of search used where Vadakku natha , Vadakkumnathan Vadakkun nathan etc , while the place named is usually spelt as Thumpamon which has the mention of the temple but added by the temple article creator. If at all it was the oldest temple in Pathanamthitta district , it would have more references. The temple may exist but I couldnt find anything to prove its notablity. I have been a resident of the same district for some 10 years near to this place of Thumpamon -- Tinu Cherian - 08:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Totally unreferenced and I couldn't find this name on any of the lists of temples in Kerala. http://www.templenet.com/enckeraa1.html#Top%20of%20Page ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:32, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The temple is mentioned at http://www.hindu.com/2006/07/25/stories/2006072513340300.htm as Thumpamon Vadakkumnatha, though Hindu article does not assert the temple's notability. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 09:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It may exist, but so far there are no reasons to believe it is notable that are referenced from reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:55, 16 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 13:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Xavier Torres Buigues

Non-notable footballer who fails WP:ATHLETE. Never played in a level higher than Segunda Division B, which is not fully professional. Angelo (talk) 10:30, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 11:30, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. When and if he plays for La Liga or other professional league he can be brought back. -- Alexf^(talk) 12:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a lot of players from Barcelona B have Wikipedia pages, are they going to be deleted as well? Segunda B is the third tier, and furthermore the A team is permitted to "borrow" players from their B team throughout the season, whenever back-up in a certain position is needed. He is even registered to play in this year's Champions League. The Segunda División B may not be fully professional, but you can bet your bottom euro that Xavi Torres gets a decent living wage. :-) I also find it odd that the nominator, Angelo, himself is clearly a big football fan and a coach, and has written and updated a number of pages about the Italian lower divisions and its players, so a bit hypocritical I think. Is for example Giacomo Modica, current coach of Serie C2 (fourth division) Celano, and whose page was created by Angelo, any more wikiworthy than Xavi Torres, who would be eligible to play for Barcelona's A team, in UEFA, at any time and has been registered with UEFA to play? I think not. Let us not get into silly rows: I think Angelo really should withdraw his nomination before some of us start thinking about black pots and kettles. As for the rest of you, I see GiantSnowman has a soft spot for Bradford's players (fourth tier, English league). Good for you. My team is Valencia CF and I have a soft spot for all of them. Before you start nominating for deletion pages on players from "lesser" teams, think of the players and teams you're interested in. Wikipedia works because many people see the free time they volunteer to the website as a labour of love, and a desire to inform. There are plenty of hoax and promotional Wikipedia pages to keep the deletionists happy. I really think there is a time and a place, and when football fans (and often fans of lesser teams in their own countries) start recommending the deletion of pages that they would be interested in unkeeping had they applied to leagues in their own country, really does get under my skin. Chill, guys! :-) Xavi Torres is as notable as any Bradford or Celano player, and is much more likely to play in the Champions League in the coming months than any Bradford/Celano player. Tris2000 (talk) 12:33, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Modica is a former player for several Serie B teams, he even won promotion to the top flight when at Padova. And current and past Serie B players are notable, because they used to play in a fully professional league. This is not Torres's case, since Segunda Division B is not a fully professional league. --Angelo (talk) 13:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as clearly fails WP:ATHLETE. To Tris2000: If there are other articles on Barcelona B players who have never played in the Primera or Segunda division, then yes, they should also be deleted (but anyway, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument in an AfD). It is also not the done thing to go through other editors histories and then pick out things and effectively accuse them of being hypocrites, especially when you are the one who has misunderstood guidelines. Serie C2 is a fully professional league; Segunda B is not, and WP:ATHLETE clearly states that they must have played in a fully pro league. If this guy does ever play for Barcelona, then yes, he'll have an article, but until then, claiming that he's more likely to play in the CL is mere guesswork. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 13:13, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Apologies if it was not good etiquette to look at other people's contributions, I just find it odd that's all. Does the fact that he registered and given a number for UEFA Champions League this year not give him notability? Like his teammate David Córcoles who actually played a few minutes in the Champions League with Valencia CF against Roma two seasons ago... is he more notable than Xavi Torres? I wouldn't like to say, to be honest. There's so much rubbish on Wikipedia - hoaxes and self-promotions - that are obviously worth deleting. I cannot understand why guys like you (and this is not a personal attack) want to delete stuff which in effect is doing no harm by being there, is informative, etc. If Xavi Torres were to play in Barcelona's next Champions League game, people will look him up on Wiki and there'll be nothing (if it gets deleted). Then someone else will have to recreate a page (and never being sure whether playing a few minutes at the end will be notable enough as far as the deletionists are concerned). What a waste of energy. Keep the poor guy up here, as a stub, and let it pass. I don't even like FC Barcelona, I couldn't give a toss about their players, I just think that this is a matter of principle. Again, apologies if I failed in the netiquette stakes. Tris2000 (talk) 18:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your question, no it does not give him notability. Actually playing a game would. The "doing no harm by being there" argument is a very very poor reasons for keeping an article. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 09:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At first I was wondering if Barca B was proper league, but then as I see they are slowly being classed and pushed out to a reserve league it tends to say that all those Barca B games he played aren't eligible for stats record and I guess it would be the case on that Xavier Torres hasn't made a full debut and shouldn't be notable till he has played a proper pro game. Govvy (talk) 14:31, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:06, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The AfD template has been removed several times from the page. Can people keep an eye on it - it's been gone for over 24-hours during this AfD period already. Perhaps someone should semi-protect if it continues. Nfitz (talk) 16:18, 15 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 13:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Electric Grunion Colour Supplement

Totally non-notable publication being promoted by its editor. Sgroupace (talk) 09:42, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Is there a speedy category for this sort of thing? Obvious spam? Duffbeerforme (talk) 14:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet notability guidelines. Teleomatic (talk) 04:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - A Google search turned up two results, and both were from Wikipedia. I can't even see this passing WP:V. Hoax? DARTH PANDA ^duel 02:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as blatant hoax. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 09:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copa Toyota de America

Hoax - no such tournament exists. ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under criterion G1 (blatant hoax) – Pee Jay 09:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just tagged it for speedy deletion as outright misinformation. Alexius08 (talk) 09:24, 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 both --JForget 22:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Crews and Joseph Shelton

An apparent hoax. An alleged 28-year old philanthropist who founded a global NGO which saved 750,000 lives while continuing to study at college? No reliable sources (in fact, no sources at all) - extraordinary given the alleged global reach of the NGO and its claimed results. The alleged website for the NGO (ofo.org, listed in the external links) does not exist, and the references attached to the article make no mention of either the person or the organisation. If not a hoax, then an apparent failure of WP:N - no mentions in reliable secondary sources.Euryalus (talk) 08:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Sorry, I didn't see this AfD actually get filed, so I deleted the article blatant nonsense--I can undelete it if we want to run the formal AfD here. Actually, he would be 18 not 28, and I concur (as I responded to a fairly impolite msg on my talkpage from the creator) that all the sources were completely bogus. Part of a walled garden (tied subjects, worked by a closely-allied editor duo) with another article of similar extraordinary claims with cites that don't mention the subject at all (that was speedied by another admin, and has now been recreated). May as well bundle it in this AfD... DMacks (talk)

Give me time and I promise I can get better sources. They do exist. I can prove these claims.STLisbetterthanChicago (talk) 09:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N: regarding Adam Crews, "oranges for orphans" via Google = 1 result, seemingly unrelated; regarding Joseph Shelton, "cutting out alzheimer's" via Google = 8 results, mostly related to a local fundraiser (not terribly notable). -Kgasso (talk) 09:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete very likely to be hoax. Without sources available, support deletion. --Oscarthecat (talk) 09:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete them both. I'll rewrite when I have everything readily available.STLisbetterthanChicago (talk) 09:13, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hoax. Non-notable. No sources are given. Dekisugi (talk) 09:13, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. Zero ghits for the Oranges For Orphans NGO. A couple of ghits for "Cutting Out Alzheimer's", but all of them refer to a one-time scrapbooking event, not an organization. The amount of documentation involved in setting up such an organization makes it highly implausible that both would pass completely unnoticed. Zetawoof_(ζ) 09:14, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I tried to find any evidence of this not being a hoax and could not. The name of a charity at least should be findable, so unless a source turns up I'm assuming this is fictional. - FlyingToaster 09:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. User:STLisbetterthanChicago is User:Adamc714 (per [21]) so could have COI problem. Other edits of his (removal of AfD, user-page vandalism, talk-page incivility) certainly don't help his cause, but hopefully for his sake don't become a more extended pattern. DMacks (talk) 09:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment COI problem? Confused...STLisbetterthanChicago (talk) 09:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

COI because you are Adamc714 making grand claims about "Adam Crews", and sockpuppetry because you are using both that account and STLisbetterthanChicago on the same day to edit the same articles. JohnCD (talk) 10:49, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And his IP, 150.243.210.125 as well, I would suggest. MSGJ 14:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, certainly not notable and strongly suspect a hoax, especially in light of Joseph Shelton similarity. The original Shelton article also said he was openly homosexual and violent without sourcing, and when I speedy deleted the article as G10 BLP vio, STLisbetterthanChicago used his User:Adamc714 account to recreate it at AFC. JGHowes ^talk 09:40, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - unverifiable, almost certain hoaxes. JohnCD (talk) 10:49, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - and the socks should be formally reported. (I'll do this myself if I get time.) AlexTiefling (talk) 10:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reported at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Adamc714. JohnCD (talk) 14:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could not find any sources, and because of that will have to say it is not notable. --Banime (talk) 12:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Edward321 (talk) 15:14, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as clear hoax. One creator s now blocked for edit warring, which doesn't say much for his respect of wikipedia. Dayewalker (talk) 06:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 13:19, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fred and Red's

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Fred and Red's

I declined the speedy because although the tone is advertish, I think it's fixable. Notability is borderline, so I'd like some input from the community. L'Aquatique[talk] 08:02, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete (G11) — It's a shame. Seems like a nice place to do an article on, but this is clearly advertising, which would require a complete rewrite to become encyclopedic. MuZemike (talk) 08:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The article is not blatant advertising and has already been rewritten to reduce the "fanish" tone. It is therefore not a G11 candidate. It would be nice to see another source or 2 though. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Can be fixed. I'll work on it manyana. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. Spam article. No proofs of notability of this restaurant to deserve an article here. Dekisugi (talk) 08:36, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changed my vote to keep (see my review below). Dekisugi (talk) 09:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notability can be established the usual way [22] although it takes a bit of digging. No reason to make an exception to usual practice here. Wily D 14:44, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Those with concerns are free to rewrite and edit the article. The editor who is working on it has been diligently adding newspaper articles and other sources as per the concerns expressed. They've also posted about their efforts on the article's discussion page. If someone wants to steer them in the right direction, I suggest communicating with them there or on their user discussion page.ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 17:23, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 17:23, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many new edits and additional sources. Please re-evaluate. OldManO (talk) 01:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a chance to read all the sources. Good work. References 1 and 2, and one link in the other sources are the same, so please combine them. Some of the sources in the "Other sources" section should be put as sources of a text. Please remove trip advisor review, as it is non-reliable. Dekisugi (talk) 09:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trip Advisor review removed, multiple references to same newpaper article converted to acceptable format. OldManO (talk) 03:08, 15 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. waggers (talk) 09:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Claire Gorton

Obviously non-notable person, added hangon after removing csd tags, so might not be easy to delete. ~Pip 2 andahalf 07:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete- That person is just joking around. [23] I even tagged it g3 but he removed the tag and added some more content. Speedy a7. Unpopular Opinion (talk · contribs) 08:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (A7) — no assertion of notability, whatsoever. MuZemike (talk) 08:32, 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. Initially I had some misgivings, but the more I searched, the more apparent it became that there simply are no reliable sources that have given coverage to this company. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Petsense

This company seems entirely unnotable. The article reads like an advertisement and has only one external link, which is to the company's own official website. Seems like an easy delete to me. -- Copy Editor (talk) 07:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Company makes no real claim of notability in the article, a search turns up only blog entries, advertisements and the company's own website. Fails WP:CORP. Theseeker4 (talk) 14:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article needs to be referenced. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As Threseeker4 mentioned, and as I mentioned in my nomination, there are no notable references to this company. Therefore, it's basically impossible to "reference" this article. Thanks. -- Copy Editor (talk) 19:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They aren't great references, but I added a couple to the article. I think a chain of pet stores is notable, and if someone wants to hunt up better references they would be able to do so. The company exists and is large enough to be notable as demonstrated by the weak sources I added. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You yourself describe them as "weak sources." That says in and of itself that this is not a notable company. So far, the sources you added were from: "callcenterinfo.com" [24] (not a notable reference); an incidental and passing reference in a non-notable publication called "crittendenonline.com" [25], and at any rate the article is about PetSmart and not PetSense; and finally you added links to the company's own official site, which does not qualify as a notable or third-party source. Thanks for the efforts, but this just isn't a notable company. -- Copy Editor (talk) 20:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You make a lot of good points, but I've come to a different conclusion. It was founded by the founder of Petsmart, and it's a fairly large chain of retail stores. I concluded it is in fact notable and I suspect there is other coverage of it in established published sources, if not those readily available by an internet search. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking my point well. If it was in fact founded by the founder of PetSmart we are still faced with the issue of not having a reliable third-party notable source that says this. Even it if was indeed founded by the founder of PetSmart and we do find a third party reliable source that says this, I'm not sure if the simple fact of the identity of its founder can make this company notable in and of itself. What has this company achieved on its own? So far, it seems to be the footnote in the biography of a man not even deemed notable enough to have his own biography on Wikipedia. Thanks. -- Copy Editor (talk) 00:21, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 05:48, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep significant chain, references needed. however. DGG (talk) 08:23, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not important. Keyshours (talk) 19:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not appear to possess the requisite notability. Enterquick2008 (talk) 08:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. So Why 13:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Simkin

Delete Doesn't establish notability and is based largely on original research ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:41, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Can be improved. If more sources can be found, the article asserts his notability (founded a historical encyclopedia) pretty well. _David ^WS _(contribs) 14:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If more sources are found he might be notable. The closest I see is a blog. Founding an encylclopedia which appears non notable is not notable. Duffbeerforme (talk) 14:30, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I couldn’t find enough evidence for passing WP:PROF or more generally WP:BIO. A Google News search doesn’t return much when the false positives are removed. Also, Spartacus Educational does not seem to be notable enough for him to qualify for WP:PROF c. 4.--Eric Yurken (talk) 17:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think there is enough here to pass either WP:PROF or WP:BIO. The main claim to notability for Simkin seems to be his involvement in the Spartacus Educational encyclopedia. However, the latter does not appear to be notable enough to justify a bio article about Simkin. Perhaps the thing to do here is to create an article about Spartacus Educational encyclopedia and to include a bit of info about Simkin there. Nsk92 (talk) 20:19, 14 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. So Why 13:44, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Man Behind The Mascot

Meets no WP:MOVIE notability criteria. Vianello (talk) 07:02, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If this High School film had gone to festivals and won awards, it might have has a crack at notability. Being on youtube and being spoken of in blogs just does not do it. Fails WP:NF without a blink. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 13:39, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above, doesn't even hint at passing NF at this point. Skier Dude (talk) 03:55, 16 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. waggers (talk) 09:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MalayalamNewsLive

Blatant advertising of a non-notable new organization. Single link to official website. Flewis^(talk) 06:14, 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 redirect to Cora Daniels. MBisanz ^talk 13:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ghettonation: A Journey into the Land of the Bling and The Home of the Shameless

Non notable book by a semi notable author. No external links/references. Flewis^(talk) 06:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cora Daniels --Flewis^(talk) 06:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to author. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:47, 14 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 (A9) by Secret. Non-admin closure. MuZemike (talk) 18:47, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Diamond In Brooklyn

An upcoming album with a single external link to a social network (which rules out WP:V due to the lack of WP:RS) - I suggest recreating the article when it comes out per WP:CRYSTAL or when it gains sufficient notability to warrant a separate article Flewis^(talk) 06:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per nominating info per "crystal ball", non-notable, advertisement. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy what? --Flewis^(talk) 06:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete mixtape with no RS. Duffbeerforme (talk) 14:36, 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 keep. Withdrawn by nom per per ChildofMidnight and Mrschimpf (non-admin closure) Flewis^(talk) 07:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Breaking Up with Shannen Doherty

Lack context to establish notability of a seemingly un-notable reality tv show that fails WP:NF. No external sources other than imbd or internal links from other wiki articles. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information Flewis^(talk) 05:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sadly, in this case, my understanding is that major network and cable television shows are notable. But I'd be happy to be wrong here and will watch for superior arguments... ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It aired on a cable network for more than six episodes and seems like it hasn't been edited by anyone since it ended. However, it's notable despite the need for updating. Nate • (chatter) 06:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a cable network TV series which is a 30 minute episodes. Per ChildofMidnight and Mrschimpf. ApprenticeFan (talk) 07:07, 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 merge to Feilding, New Zealand#Primary and intermediate schools. MBisanz ^talk 13:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Feilding Intermediate

Non notable school, which provides no new information that isn'y presented within one of these articles List of schools in New Zealand Flewis^(talk) 05:44, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As I understand it school are notable. Ipso facto. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. Primary (including intermediate) schools are not usually considered notable by default. The usual procedure for New Zealand schools is to merge and redirect them to the locality, in this case Feilding, New Zealand. I am slowly going through the whole country, writing articles or adding sections to articles on small towns/suburbs with a school, and redirecting the school articles to these where no article on the school already exists. However, it will be some time before I work on the Manawatu area.-gadfium 08:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —gadfium 08:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect unless there is ample evidence that this is independently notable. JBsupreme (talk) 08:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect, trivial mention at NZ Herald, multiple trivial mentions at stuff.co.nz. XLerate (talk) 11:33, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 05:50, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Feilding, New Zealand#Primary and intermediate schools to where I have added the content. TerriersFan (talk) 17:31, 16 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. So Why 13:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Story Bible

Non notable picture book with no external links/citations for WP:V Flewis^(talk) 05:41, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say weak keep based on the author alone. Pearl S. Buck was a pretty important writer. Unfortunately, I haven't found much information about the book beyond brief mentions in a few sources, but I'd be surprised if it wasn't reviewed somewhere when it was released. Even if no sources materialize, we might as well convert this into a redirect to the author's page, so deletion isn't necessary. Zagalejo^^^ 05:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pearl S. Buck - per Zagalejo. If however enough WP:RS were found, and a little more information on the book was introduced, I may change my opinion to keep --Flewis^(talk) 06:02, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I think the main article could fit this in and benefit from the information contained in this article... ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bible (writing): the title Story Bible redirects to Bible (writing), and it would be reasonable to treat this as if there were no "The". Nyttend (talk) 01:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's the best solution. If someone types in "The Story Bible", with that exact wording and capitalization, I think it's more likely they're looking for a specific book. Maybe a disambiguation page is in order. Zagalejo^^^ 21:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 05:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 05:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per this Google News search. It's clear that it's a notable book, so I see no reason to redirect it to the author, although that would not be an inappropriate outcome. Let us not mistake "little in the article" for "little that can go in the article" Jclemens (talk) 06:21, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but it is only a stub. A book of 528 pages is hardly trivial. The article does not say that it is picture book, and (since Buck was a novelist), my guess is that it is not one. It is described as a paraphrase in one article found by Jclemens. I have therefore removed "allegorical novel" from the infobox as wrong. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:18, 16 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, nom withdrawn due to sources found. Non-admin closure. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 20:15, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Petals Network

Fails WP:CORP ~~nothing asserting notability~~ no verifiable notability, no independent sources. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 05:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Needs references, needs a lot of editing, but the company seems notable. "Australian National Small Business of the Year" and was "4 years in the Top 100 Fastest Growing Businesses in Australia" list. I would just cut the #$*@ out of it. There's a lot of original research and POV. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:25, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find any references for that. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 14:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep based on hansard link. may be a good idea to delete coi spammy article full of link spam and start again but notability may be there. article needs major fixing and probably another good source. Duffbeerforme (talk) 15:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am a novice at this but I have tried to provide some feedback here of the issues you raise. I am new to this and realize the company aspect. However, I note that several other similar businesses like teleflora interflora Florists' Transworld Delivery appear in wikipedia. I think we are notable because we run a floral wire service in 3 countries whereas others work in only one. We are based in a small country town and service the world. We have won a number of business awards including Australian Small Business of the year. I hope we can set a bit of an example. I would appreciate any advice you can offer to improve / keep our listing. Thanks. Clunyrd (talk) 21:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I declined the speedy because there is an assertion of possible notability from the awards, etc. But please read WP:CORP and try to add some verified material to assert notability thoroughly. Fritzpoll (talk) 22:32, 12 November 2008 (UTC) I have added some links the the NSW Parliment and the Australian Business Chamber awards we have won. I hope the builds the notability a bit. I apprecaite the feedback. Clunyrd (talk) 22:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Petals_Network" Clunyrd (talk) 22:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was probably wrong to speedy tag this especially since there is an assertion of notability, but the lack of sources as called for in WP:CORP is what's doing it for me right now. That being said, if we can find some references to prove that Petals Network was the number one business in Australia, I'll gladly flip flop to a keep and clean up. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 22:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have added several more references to Petals from governement organizations and business magazine stories. Hope that is OK? Clunyrd (talk) 20:28, 14 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. So Why 13:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LMS Sentinel 7164

There is no indication that this individual locomotive is notable (although its type or class may be). It does not appear to have received substantial coverage in reliable sources. Moreover, the article content is mostly not supported by the cited sources (one of the links is dead), causing the article to fail WP:V and possibly WP:NOR. All pertinent Google hits appear to trace back to Wikipedia. Contested PROD. Sandstein 04:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No notability shown. RobJ1981 (talk) 06:47, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's certainly arcane. In fairness I think the train buff Wikipedian section should be notified. People certainly love their trains planes and automobiles... ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment rail articles such as this are welcomed at the companion wiki Train Spotting World, where the original article has been adopted in case of deletion here. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails Notability (vehicles). Will inform WP:UKT of debate. Mjroots (talk) 07:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability is non-existent here. JBsupreme (talk) 08:23, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notability established the usual way. Unrealistic to expect as large a web presence from pre-1990 things. Wily D 14:36, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Established how exactly? I see no "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources", either on the web or on paper. Sandstein 15:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Sandstein, how exactly is the notability established? Saying "the usual way" and linking to the general notability guidelines tells noone why this article in particular should be kept. One might as well say "keep" or "delete" without any explanation whatsoever. See this. Theseeker4 (talk) 18:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete What are we, some guy's personal trainspotting log? Fletcher (talk) 17:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with LMS Sentinel 7192 and LMS Sentinels 7160-3 into Sentinel Waggon Works. MilborneOne (talk) 21:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I support deleting those two as well. We can't reasonably add descriptions of every individual locomotive this company ever built to its article. Sandstein 06:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will those two articles will also be copied to TSW too? Mjroots (talk) 08:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TSW did copy those two articles last night (and welcomes any other similarly threatened articles). I imagine it would be as difficult to assert their notability here as for the subject of this deletion discussion. I have no opinion to offer on their continued presence here. It does not seem to me to harm WP to have them, but notability is notability. One might ask "What makes a particular engine notable?" though. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 12:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we can have descriptions of as many cars as possible, we can do the same for locomotives. ----DanTD (talk) 05:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

please read WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS on that point. If it as an individual article passes the test for survival, so be it, not otherwise. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't really in the same league as The Pokemon Test. ----DanTD (talk) 13:04, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- A long scrapped loco whose number happens to have been used (misused?) does not deserve an article of its own, but merging will preserve the information. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to where? And the information has already been preserved offwiki, see above. Sandstein 13:53, 15 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. The site certainly has a significant web presence, but there is a consensus to delete in this debate, and given the lack of multiple sources I can't say that this is incorrect. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:08, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AbsolutePunk.net

AfDs for this article:

Article fails WP:WEB; lack of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself; primary sources alone are not sufficient to establish notability. DiverseMentality 04:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — besides the sole reliable source listed in the article, I cannot find any other such reliable sources that may establish notability of this site. MuZemike (talk) 08:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy~~ Absolutely delete as spam. Alexius08 (talk) 09:50, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources seem to exist. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 14:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of sources. Being mentioned in passing in a Huntsville article about something else is why that "non-trivial coverage" phrase is used in WP:N. Since that's the ONLY source that's not the website itself, that means this wikipedia article currently has zero reliable sources. -Markeer 16:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because there are enough other pages devoted to websites which are just as notable and it was JUST nominated 2 months ago. DX927 (talk) 18:14, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is a direct argument of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which is always an error in AfD cases. If there are other articles better than, worse than or the same as this one, they have absolutely no meaning in this discussion. -Markeer 01:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for reasons given on original nomination to delete. Mtrolley (talk) 22:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's very vague. Plus, consensus changes. DiverseMentality 05:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. NME seems to think Absolute Punk is a reliable source [26], [27]. The founder being voted "#18 in their list of "Top 25 Most Influential People in Online Music." by Blender also seems a claim of notability, though only sourced to a scanned copy of the mag from an AbsolutePunk forum! Nouse4aname (talk) 17:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per wp:web. -- Jeandré, 2008-11-15t13:07z
Weak Delete: With sources such as these it can be difficult to establish notability because there will be many links to them as they are freely available on the internet and, as user run websites, anyone create articles and submit news. Site such as this are well used by indy artists to get free publicity via Self-published sources or via fans re-posting information found in those same sources. This is a case where you can not find many sources about the subject that are not self published, but you can find many sources that link to the subject. A perfect example is the "Gym Class Heroes drummer speaks about arrest" article from NME cited above. It is not an article about Absolute Punk, nor does the band mention them. The only mention is "Absolute Punk reports the band are set to play the following live dates" followed by a list of dates for the band Gym Class Heroes. This is information that is freely available from many sources and if the "Absolute Punk reports..." wording was taken out the NME article would have no ill effect and would not suffer. It feels like I say this a lot of late but, for me, all I ask is that a few feature stories on a subject exist or, if they do not, several "non trivial" articles where the subject is addressed in a not-trivial way do. In this case articles about an artist who speak at length about how Absolute Punk helped to establish their fan base, led to their record deal, helped them to get a gold record or something similar would work. Articles that simply cite Absolute Punk I would not consider as "significant coverage" or even part of "multiple non-trival sources". Articles such as the two mentioned from NME do meet the "non-trivial" definition. Per "Top 25 Most Influential People in Online Music." Of the actual site it says that "it survived the blink-182 era to become the essential Web echo chamber for all things punk and emo, with 150,000 users writing as many as 60,000 gushy, newsy and polemical posts a day." Soundvisions1 (talk) 21:43, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 05:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 05:53, 16 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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You Can Dance - Single Edits of Album Remixes

Fails notability per WP:MUSIC. Promo release only. Pointless article with no references, the information can easily be assimilated in the You Can Dance page. Paul75 (talk) 04:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 00:52, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because the information can be listed on You Can Dance. That said, I think it would be best if the article's contents were merged in some way with You Can Dance. --icorey (talk) 06:41, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, StarM 04:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the notability criteria for albums makes clear promo-only versions are generally not notable, and articles that are litle more than a track listing may be appropriately merged if possible. This promo version scored an arguably notable chart hit in February 1988, but all other references to it are in the context of the main You Can Dance album which was released on the same day. All of the information in this article already appears in the page relating to the mainstream album of the same name. Euryalus (talk) 10:39, 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 --JForget 22:47, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Teddy alexandro-evans

Non-notable actor. Sources do not list in-depth independent coverage, could not find sources. TN‑X-Man 19:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Could possibly be slightly notable, but there are no independant reliable resources to back it up. - Mgm|^(talk) 19:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 00:46, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, StarM 04:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's the overuse of "Teddy", there's the extensive non-encyclopedic biographical information, there's the lack of formatting, there's the massive amount of editing needed, and I think there's also a lack of notability established for inclusion on Wikipedia which is ultimately what counts. Sorry Teddy! ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:49, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, still not notable even after multiple re-listings!! JBsupreme (talk) 08:23, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of any real notability. Does it still snow after relisting? Duffbeerforme (talk) 15:16, 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 redirect to Gary Lewis and the Playboys. Mgm|^(talk) 00:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Gonzalez

Unreferenced, unable to verify the information in the article —Snigbrook 22:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:I found several references to him playing with Gary Lewis and the Playboys from the mid-1960s, including: [28] and [29].-- Myosotis Scorpioides 23:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The second link is a copy of the Wikipedia article. The first may also be based on the Wikipedia article, as in the older versions of the page on www.archive.org Gonzalez was only added in 2007, and the text on the page is similar to the Gary Lewis (musician) and Gary Lewis & the Playboys articles. —Snigbrook 00:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment:References - Nowlin, Bill. The Kid, Ted Williams in San Diego. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Rounder Books, 2005. ISBN 1579400949. Discusses Williams' early life and extensively documents his ancestry DonDeigo (talk) 17:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It depends how much coverage there is in the book – also more than one source is needed to meet the general notability guideline. Notability as part of Gary Lewis & the Playboys would make a redirect possible (with a possibility of merging any verifiable content) as suggested in WP:MUSIC, although if this is done a disambiguation would be needed as there is also Dave Gonzalez (musician), an article which was kept after a "no consensus" AFD (this is how I became aware of the Dave Gonzalez article). —Snigbrook 22:40, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment; With the documentation referenced about Dave in Bill Nowlin's Ted Williams bio book, and verification of Dave's band membership on Gary Lewis's website - this article should remain as a stub; which expands on members of a famous American Rock & Roll band. DonDeigo (talk) 14:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, StarM 04:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I didn't see evidence of notability. Although he has some famous family members? ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT; Dave's a legend - played and jamed with every band in south bay in the '70's what's the deal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.203.192.36 (talk) 07:41, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as is; I saw this Dave Gonzalez playing at the Palamino Club in Hollywood, CA back around 1973 or '74 - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.203.192.36 (talk) 19:06, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KeepAdamc714 (talk) 07:59, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gary Lewis and the Playboys. I thought I'd surely be able to find some good references on him given his long presence in the industry, but I've failed. Redirect to the band, and perhaps someone else will be able to flesh this out as a separate article when notablity is proven. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 12:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closure. (non-admin closure) DARTH PANDA ^duel 20:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of speeches by Martin Luther King

Per WP:LINKFARM, Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links. This list is a mirror of links to the speeches at MLK Online. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 04:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why do people always title their articles "List of..."? Is this to prevent anyone from adding encyclopedic information to their lists? Do people just like lists? That being said, I think an article on "Speeches of Martin Luther King Jr." (and by the way this should be retitled with Jr., since Martin Luther King's speeches aren't notable) is a great resource for the encyclopedia. Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChildofMidnight (talk • contribs)
Keep but rename to Speeches by Martin Luther King, as stated above. The topic just has to be notable, and there are no doubt dozens of books that can be used as sources. - Richard Cavell (talk) 10:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - of high encyclopaedic value. Wily D 14:33, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I believe the best thing to do is make an article called something like Speeches by Martin Luther King and include this list as well as the articles How Long, Not Long and I've Been to the Mountaintop and redirect the existing articles. A short description of I Have a Dream should also be included with a link to the main article. Duffbeerforme (talk) 15:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - very notable, but needs major editing, as suggested by others. Proper inline cites and more descriptions would be a start.--Boffob (talk) 16:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename Sermons and Speeches of Martin Luther King, Jr. as suggested by Duffbeerforme. Modest changes have now been made based on Boffob's suggestions. --Tenmei (talk) 18:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in answer to one of the comments above, people like lists, and because they serve very effectively for browsing, which throughout history has ben one of the key function of books, libraries,and especially encyclopedias. There are almost always considerably more of a particular sort of thing worth looking at than you knew existed. A list such as this is a very effective guide to a career. He gave too many speeches for them all to be worth including at least initially, so some sort of selective criterion is needed, but essentially its like a bibliography of an authors works. I think it would be a good idea to complete this if possible, and if there are a few thousand, as there may be over a career t like his, I see no harm there either. Why is sourced information about what extremely notable people do in their career inappropriate for an encyclopedia? There are probably a few dozen at least worth adding, and certainly we could use more than 3 individual Wikipedia entries for individual ones DGG (talk) 19:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I started the article because I was looking for information on more speeches of him (only three were mentioned in Wikipedia). Why not expand each entry, adding analysis or contents of the speech? Or suggest to merge it with the main article MLK? Why not adding a supreme article or section on the overall style and content of the speeches? Would that not be encyclopedic? All this development would be curtailed bij deletion. To me the VfD stems from impatience. -DePiep (talk) 20:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DePiep -- FYI: I did add a "main article" template in the introductory paragraphs of Martin Luther King, Jr., near the mention of the March on Washington and King's oratory in the context of that event -- alerting reader to the fact that relevant material can be found at List of speeches by Martin Luther King. --Tenmei (talk) 21:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While a list of speeches by an average person wouldn't be worthy of keeping, it's quite useful and indeed necessary (and definitely not OR or POV) to have a list of speeches by one of the best known speakers of the 20th century. Nyttend (talk) 01:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to withdraw this AfD under WP:SNOWBALL. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 04:40, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:44, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 04:03, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarence D. Wiley

Non-notable small-town and small-parish politician. None of his political offices meet the criteria for notability. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 03:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A fine essay, but it's author hasn't established the individual's notoriety (I decided to use a word other than notability just to shock people). ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:33, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Child: it's a well-written article, well-sourced, but local politicians with only local press coverage aren't notable. Nyttend (talk) 01:39, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 05:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 05:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 04:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Impose Magazine

No claim of notability (being nominated for--not winning--a minor award isn't a claim of notability). (Note that characterization of "Plug" awards as minor has been disputed without reference.) Bongo matic 03:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no assertion of notability, insufficient reliable sourcing. Icewedge (talk) 04:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional and doesn't establish notability beyond the existence of the magazine. And the beat goes on...ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This smells like spam. Impose a speedy delete. Alexius08 (talk) 09:53, 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 Redirect to Darksword. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 12:03, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simkin (character)

This character does not establish notability independent of Darksword 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 of the article, so the coverage in the main article is enough detail on the character. TTN (talk) 01:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Already covered here. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:14, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect If for no other reason than to eliminate the plot summary at the beginning of every characters individual biography. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to series article per nom, where the character is already covered. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Eusebeus (talk) 00:25, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 05:56, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 05:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep presented as a key character through the game. I see very little in the way of plot details, and what is there is sourced to the work itself, the most reliable source. Conceivably merge, if there were some way of guaranteeing the information could be kept. DGG (talk) 08:48, 16 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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 11:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leslie Burke

This character does not establish notability independent of Bridge to Terabithia (novel) 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 of the article, so the coverage in the main articles is enough detail on the character. TTN (talk) 01:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Already covered here. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Per nom and Beebs. I should have better reasons, but trust is important!ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Too notable to stick in parent article I'm afraid. Character likely to have lasting significance and is present in book and movie (any maybe other venues, I'm not an expert). ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:01, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agree. central character to two films and book, about which much has been written. There will be scholarly analysis of this. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as one of the two main characters of a popular book and film. There should be enough to write to justify having an independent article. Everyking (talk) 18:40, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There will be and there should be are not very convincing arguments to keep... Beeblebrox (talk) 20:25, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If you prefer, you can ignore my second sentence and pretend the first sentence is the entire rationale. My point, though, is that there's already a fair amount of content, and given the notability of the character it's very likely that more material can be found to expand the article. Everyking (talk) 20:30, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete per WP:N. Mere plot summary with trivia trimmings. No need t all for a separate article, which will serve merely as a magnet for fancruft Eusebeus (talk) 00:26, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed, this article is full of fancruft and plot summary. Virtually everything here is already covered in different words on the three Bridge to Terabithia articles. No scholarly research is included, nor seems likely to be. Jphillst (talk) 02:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 05:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 05:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep notable: major work, major character.A separate article for the practical reason of keeping the material from vanishing in a destructive merge. Im no longer commenting on all the less relevant parts of these nominations, so I'll just mention one this time:the meaningless "No current assertion for improvement-"" which the nom has refused to elucidate after many requests, and i cannot find the meaning and i don't see that anyone else can either. For all I know it might be a good argument, if I understood it. DGG (talk) 08:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think you should have to worry about the material "vanishing in a destructive merge" since most of the information is already in the three BTT articles. Also remember that WP:N assures that the unnotability of the subject of a separate article does not restrict the content of its parent article -- we can easily give an sufficient description of Leslie on the main BTT article. Jphillst (talk) 05:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 11:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Jesse Aarons

This character does not establish notability independent of Bridge to Terabithia (novel) 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 of the article, so the coverage in the main articles is enough detail on the character. TTN (talk) 01:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep More than one appearance and quite notable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agree. central character to two films and book, about which much has been written. There will be scholarly analysis of this. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as one of the two main characters of a popular book and film. There should be enough to write to justify having an independent article. Everyking (talk) 18:42, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N. No need established in any way for an independent article. This serves merely to accumulate fancruft. Eusebeus (talk) 00:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed, this article is full of fancruft and plot summary. Virtually everything here is already covered in different words on the three Bridge to Terabithia articles. No scholarly research is included, nor seems likely to be. Jphillst (talk) 02:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 05:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 05:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very significant books, major character implies notability enough for an article. Or of course a merge would be conceivable keeping the content, for it really doesn't matter whether or not the articles are combination articles. But that this was proposed as a delete indicated there is no intention of keeping the content, so it would be better to keep it separate to prevent the removal of content from a supposedly merged article DGG (talk) 08:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, according to WP:N, an article topic that is deemed unnotable doesn't necessarily mean that the content is unnotable for its parent article, so a merge isn't out of the question. However, I still think it would be better to delete this article and keep the separate content on the three BTT articles. There's nothing about Jesse here that isn't already mentioned in the other articles. Jphillst (talk) 04:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 04:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Magic in the Bartimaeus Trilogy

This list of minor terminology does not establish notability independent of the Bartimaeus Trilogy 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. It is just an unnecessary collection of terms that only need to be covered when necessary. TTN (talk) 01:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article should be kept. I feel that this article does have information that deserves its own article and not just brief mention. For example the nature of demons and their summoning is a major idea the understanding of which underlies the entire trilogy and without which the other articles would make no sense. While this information could be included in other articles they would soon become unwieldy because much of it is vital and would need to be kept. Therefore if it is deleted (which it shouldn't be) the more relevant details need to be merged with Bartmaeus Trilogy article.--Beligaronia (talk) 03:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom which pretty much says it all. Eusebeus (talk) 06:25, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As Beligaronia said, much of the information in this article is important in understanding the series. Of course, if it can be cleaned up (proper citations, and removing some un-needed information), it will be even better. — Insanity Incarnat e 07:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As useful and encyclopedic information. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:02, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wow, this is a fictional material. Wikipedia works on verifiability, which isn't shown in here. The article doesn't show real world notability from reliable sources. It does have problems listed clearly in WP:INUNIVERSE. For this moment, I'd say delete, or at best redirect to Bartimaeus Trilogy. Dekisugi (talk) 08:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- The nominator and Dekisugi said it all, really. This is unsourced, excessively lengthy fancruft that doesn't satisfy Wikipedia's standards on verifiability and notability. Reyk _YO! 19:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge with Bartimaeus Trilogy#Universe. This article is in need of a cleanup, which is not cause for deletion. Citations ought to be added, and some in-universe sections rewritten or removed. If, once this process is complete, the article is too small to stand by itself I would, like Beligaronia above, support a merge to the relevant section of the main series article. -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 23:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The article is also completely without reliable secondary sources and, I suspect, unsourceable. That is a reason for deletion. Reyk _YO! 23:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article refactors some things from a specific book series and combines it, probably, with some original research and its written in an INUNIVERSE point of view and, IMO, there is hope to change this view

because of the subject discussed. It doesn't show any real world notability as well. --Magioladitis (talk) 08:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, (almost) all of the content of this article can be confirmed directly with the books, and very little of it is original research or speculation. Compare to Magic in Harry Potter: the only sources are the author and the books, and no more are really needed. This article is written in an in-universe style, but this can be fixed without deleting it. — Insanity Incarnat e 18:47, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 05:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep major topic in major work. worth an article all the sources on the books will deal with it as 3rd party sources. No OR, no speculation. Only quetion is whethr to combine with the main article,but i think there's enoguh to develop separately. DGG (talk) 08:50, 16 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 Characters of Terabithia. MBisanz ^talk 04:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: The Article needs to be merged to Characters of the Bartimaeus Trilogy--Beligaronia (talk) 07:44, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kitty Jones

This character does not establish notability independent of the Bartimaeus Trilogy 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 of the article, so the coverage in the main articles is enough detail on the character. TTN (talk) 01:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Combine I recommend combining these more minor characters into a characters of Terabithia article. You aren't going to be able to shoehorn all the information people want to include into the movie/ book/ teleseries article. But at least you can consolidate into an article focusing on the character and redirect there. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The same reason I gave in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magic in the Bartimaeus Trilogy. Dekisugi (talk) 08:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above - agree with nom & Dekisugi. Eusebeus (talk) 00:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Combine or Keep There is important information gleaned from the book that is not included in the main article on the trilogy. This needs to be kept somewhere.--Beligaronia (talk) 09:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 05:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 05:59, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 04:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nathaniel (Bartimaeus trilogy)

This character does not establish notability independent of the Bartimaeus Trilogy 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 of the article, so the coverage in the main articles is enough detail on the character. TTN (talk) 01:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Combine As per need to have one good article on the characters as opposed to several weaker ones. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The same reason I gave in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magic in the Bartimaeus Trilogy. Dekisugi (talk)
Delete as above - agree with nom & Dekisugi. Eusebeus (talk) 00:30, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 05:59, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 05:59, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 04:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bartimaeus (Bartimaeus trilogy)

This character does not establish notability independent of the Bartimaeus Trilogy 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 of the article, so the coverage in the main articles is enough detail on the character. TTN (talk) 01:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Combine I think a good trim and combination would do the original research in this article some good. On the other hand I may be wrong. It's an extensive article. Unsourced though. I don't really know what to do with it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The same reason I gave in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magic in the Bartimaeus Trilogy. Dekisugi (talk)
Combine or Keep obviously the Role in Trilogy section is uneccesary but does add important info to the character not found in main article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beligaronia (talk • contribs) 19:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think its a good working rule that the hero of a major series of very popular novels is notable. The sources for the novels will inevitably talk about him to a very considerable extent. There is no requirement whatsoever that articles on fictional characters have real-world notability--obviously notability of fiction is as fiction, I ask the nom once morw to provide an explanation of "no current assertion for future improvement of the article, " Does he perhaps mean the articles doe not specifically say it will be expanded? If that's the meaning, it's not part of our notability criteria, but an imaginary rule. DGG (talk) 17:24, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no independent notability established or even asserted. Eusebeus (talk) 00:31, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since whoever is editing the article is using my IP without my permission. --64.180.240.251 (talk) 21:50, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Surely that isn't a valid reason for deletion. Is your decision to delete based on the article or just your invaded privacy. Don't take it out on Wikipedia. --Beligaronia (talk) 03:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That edit was made in February 2006! IP addresses get recycled all the time, and you just happened to get one that was used to edit the article over 2 1/2 years ago. No one stole your IP address, and this is certainly not a valid reason for deletion. DHowell (talk) 23:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 05:59, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 05:59, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While I'd never heard of him before, this is apparently the main character of a best-selling book series, and there is plenty of reliable source coverage of the books and the trilogy—and it is logical that any coverage of the books and trilogy is going to cover the main character. "No current assertion for future improvement of the article" seems to be simply a "no effort" argument and is not a valid reason for deletion. DHowell (talk) 23:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Skulduggery Pleasant. MBisanz ^talk 04:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Faceless One (Skulduggery Pleasant)

This group of characters does not establish notability independent of Skulduggery Pleasant 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 of the article, so the coverage in the main articles is enough detail on the characters. TTN (talk) 01:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:V as an article consisting entirely of plot summary with no references whatsoever and no assertion of notability. I also note what looks like some original research near the end ("it is known that...", "are clearly inspired by...", "may have been a homage to...", etc.). --IllaZilla (talk) 01:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Skulduggery Pleasant DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 01:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge. These gods represent a major plot device and so need some coverage in the main article if not their own article. It also needs to be moved to Faceless Ones.--Beligaronia (talk) 04:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N & WP:NOT#PLOT. Eusebeus (talk) 00:23, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In this particular case, the main article has an almost equally full description of the characters & their role. It is possible that as further vols. in the series get published, there may be need to divide the article, but I do not see any case for it yet. I do not think a redirect is appropriate because the name of the group is not distinctive--so non-distinctive that it had to be qualified by the name of the book to be meaningful. DGG (talk) 02:26, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's qualified by the name of the book because there is a group called the Faceless Ones in another work of fiction. I tried creating it as "Faceless One" and was taken to a different article. Oh and for the time being I'm for a redirect. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 17:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ as above. No need for a redirect here either .DGG (talk) 02:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Whoa Mr. Daley, this isn't Chicago, you only get to !vote once ;) DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 03:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 06:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 06:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Skulduggery Pleasant; no real preference between those two, but this article doesn't meet our inclusion policies as it is, as argued by the users above. Terraxos (talk) 03:21, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 03:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Reylan B. Viray

Notability issues, cited references aren't as established either. The person's works are not as significant outside the university. Axxand (talk) 00:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Definitely not notable. Failing to meet guidelines. ApprenticeFan (talk) 02:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —ApprenticeFan (talk) 02:23, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:YOURSELF. Appears to be an autobiography. -- DanielPenfield (talk) 07:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: do Filipinos know him? I guess not. Alexius08 (talk) 09:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Written like an autobio, presented like a work resume. Starczamora (talk) 14:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Viray's works have not been recognized by mainstream press, or have been given awards to suffice this person's notability. --Efe (talk) 01:32, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 04:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alfredo Tjiurimo Hengari: Namibian Political Scientist

nn bio, does not meet WP:ACADEMIC. PRODded, removed by me because of a protest on the talkpage (demonstrating that the deletion is controversial), but I support deletion. gnfnrf (talk) 00:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are a lot of newspaper articles by him and some responses to those articles. I added two references which quote him as an authority. See also this Google Scholar search. -- Eastmain (talk) 03:25, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Are we looking at the same search? I only see one result, in German, whose relevance I cannot verify. gnfnrf (talk) 03:43, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 03:25, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 03:25, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 03:25, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I am not sure yet about biographic notability under WP:BIO, but the subject is not notable under WP:ACADEMIC. There is almost nothing in the googlescholar search cited by Eastmain and according to the article's text the subject is currently studying for a PhD. He may well be notable under WP:BIO, based on these googlenews results[30] (71 hits in googlenews), but I'd have to look at them closer. Nsk92 (talk) 03:48, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. He is not a notable scholar. When this was proded I spent at least two hours trying to dig out references to decide whether to prod-2 or not. My decision not to prod-2 but not to deprod reflects my indecision! For me, the crucial point was if he could be verified as a former special advisor to the Namibian PM as this would make him notable. I could only find a couple of references to this, both of which were letters to the editors in newspapers which, although the newspaper was a reliable source, a letter to the editor isn't necessarily. An example reference is here: [31]. His work as a journalist on The Namibian means his writing is widely available but isn't enough on its own to make him meet WP:BIO IMO. Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 09:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep, per Unusual? Quite. Enough newscoverage of him for passing WP:BIO. It is probably a good idea to move the title to simply Alfredo Tjiurimo Hengari. Nsk92 (talk) 13:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As pointed out by Unusual? Quite, he does not qualify as notable based on WP:PROF. He is on his way toward qualifying under WP:BIO, but right now he does not yet have enough coverage in the media that is independent from him. He is a news reporter himself, not someone that other news reporters have talked about extensively. He seems to be switching to becoming the latter, but is not there yet, IMO.--Eric Yurken (talk) 22:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete not notable as an academic; but "chief of staff in the Office of the Prime minister." if documented, would quite possibly be notable. DGG (talk) 02:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 04:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ericka boussarhane

Contested prod. Thinly disguised advertisement for a psychic. No reliable sources provided, none found. Article does not show how subject meets the relevant guideline. TN‑X-Man 00:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep it's an ad, but the subject seems to have some middling level of notability (per Google). JJL (talk) 01:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete reads like an ad, Google hits seem to be promotional (MySpace, LinkedIn, bestpsychicdirectory, etc.) --skew-t (talk) 09:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notability, Myspace, psychic101 and psychicdirectory do NOT count as reliable 3rd party sources, fails WP:BIO so delete. Theseeker4 (talk) 15:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:06, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 04:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aquacrunk

Doesn't seem to be a notable genre. Only sources are three mentions in the Guardian which don't tell too much, and no other source at all seems to give this genre any mention. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:44, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable.Theseeker4 (talk) 21:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete': All the links in the article are trivial mentions. Schuym1 (talk) 22:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Vote change to keep: per the Guardian article. Schuym1 (talk) 13:39, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Though I suspect this is a word Rustie made up on the spot to be amusing, the nature of the UK's fast-moving trend-sensitive music press has made it notable. The entire Guardian article is about the genre, as is much of Lisa Blanning's July 2008 The Wire article "Rustie". 86.44.21.224 (talk) 12:58, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We should probably just fashion an article on Rustie who seems to be increasingly notable as all get out, and just redirect for now. 86.44.21.224 (talk) 13:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per reliable references in the article -- Yaneleksklus (talk) 21:30, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:33, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This nonsense does not exist at all. Whomever created this garbage needs to stop making up music genres. Pandyu (talk) 02:25, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 06:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 04:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Music Inferno

Fails notability per WP:MUSIC. Song was performed on one tour by artist. Article has no references, and is full of original research Paul75 (talk) 04:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:44, 5 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, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As the México Top 100 appears unofficial there is no real claim to notability left. Duffbeerforme (talk) 16:06, 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. MBisanz ^talk 04:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brett Turner

This player plays for a club which is in a third tier rugby league competition. The WP:RL, suggests that articles should be for first grade players - and other lower tier players only if they have reliable secondary sources. This article is unsourced, hardly/no any third party sources from Google News, its orphaned, it dosen't seem that it will ever be able to expand from what it is. I "prod" it last month, but nothing really has been done. So I'm AfDing it. The Windler talk 00:55, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable player. It's not a good sign when the AfD nom is bigger than the article. Fletcher (talk) 02:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable player, no reliable sources, and plays in a "minor league" _David ^WS _(contribs) 14:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 06:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 06:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 04:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sofia Lidskog

No sources. Only notable for being a part of the Clue Crew on Jeopardy!. Seems to fails notability. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 01:01, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep minimal level of notability achieved between the high school channel and other appearances. JJL (talk) 03:18, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that, especially given the utter lack of sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:09, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsorced article with dubios claim to notability. Duffbeerforme (talk) 16:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 06:04, 16 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) 00:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy McGuire

Doesn't seem to meet notability. Hardly any sources, no real assertation of notability outside of being in Jeopardy!'s clue crew. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 01:03, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit with hedge clippers There is an article on Jimmy. So I think the issue is that it's not encyclopedic. There's also the possibility of merging with a Clue Crew article. How many of these people are out there? Will Wikipedia be swamped by the Clue Crew? ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:53, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I was on the fence for this one, but the two references from third-party source established some notability.--Omarcheeseboro (talk) 01:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Barely passes the WP:N line...barely. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notability established the usual way. Not an exceptional case that needs special consideration. Wily D 14:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 06:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 02:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Miyahara

No reliable sources, no notability outside of Clue Crew. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 01:03, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 04:42, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:49, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't come close to meeting the GNG. RMHED (talk) 00:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per all of the above, not notable _David ^WS _(contribs) 01:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO, single minor role for a single production does not a notable person make. Theseeker4 (talk) 15:36, 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

INC Research

There are dozens of CROs, and some are notable (first, largest, etc), but this is not one of them —G716 <^T·_C> 18:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No secondary sources to establish notability. The company description doesn't assert notability either. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 01:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Could not find any hits that established notability of company, fails WP:CORP. Theseeker4 (talk) 15:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 06:06, 16 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. Keep in some form. Whether or not it should be merged, and if so what the target should be, is one for talk-page discussion. Consensus is that this material should be kept in some form/location. StarM 04:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pine Middle School shooting

This article does not meet the standards of notability. It was a shooting that occurred two and a half years ago at a middle school, and there is not an adequate amount of information needed to be used for this article. The article has no place anywhere here except for the list of school attacks. Cyanidethistles {Tim C} 06:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am unsure why two and a half years ago and at a middle school have anything to do with the question of notability. Kingturtle (talk) 13:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notability demonstrated in sources the usual way. I see no reason to treat this as such an exceptiona case that the usual guidelines should not be followed. Wily D 15:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to school shooting. I am glad that this did not turn into fatalities, vigils, anniverary observances, memorials, etc. Part of the usual way for notability is that there is still significant coverage outside the immediate timeframe. Mandsford (talk) 18:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to both school shooting and list of school attacks. TerriersFan (talk) 19:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 20:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to list of school attacks. No content that explains notability, certainly not deserving of an independent article, unless Wikipedia has a policy that "all school shootings are notable" which I am not aware of. Theseeker4 (talk) 16:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to list of school attacks. Theres no reason to have its own individual article, but would be notable enough to put it in as a school attack.Hairy Perry 17:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't think merging alone would do it justice (its already in the school shootings article anyway and most other school shootings are linked to separate articles as well, so this one should be too). I found even more sources on it: [32] [33] [34] [35] [36]. Notable from these and the included sources and should maintain its own article in addition to its listing on the list of school shootings. --Banime (talk) 12:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Well, for one thing: I had heard of it before I saw this AfD, already a fairly good indication of WP:NOTE. Anyway, there are reliable sources. It doesn't matter that it happened 2.5 years ago. Otherwise, you could argue that the article on (insert popular movie here) should be deleted because it came out 2.5 years ago. Anyway, notable, keep. _David ^WS _(contribs) 14:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I had to remove a great deal of the text due to copyright infringement issues, and now the article is a tiny stub. The article needs some major editing and writing. Kingturtle (talk) 14:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep .The age of the shooting is no problem,we cover back to the beginning of time. Nor is the level of the school. The only question is whether it meets our notability standards without anyone being killed. I think even without that, such shootings are notable, and of more than temporary news value. DGG (talk) 07:44, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 02:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Center for Citizen Initiatives

Notability of organisation has not been established through multiple non-trivial independent reliable sources. Google news has zero hits. Google scholar has very few and those that come back are tangential at best. A quick browse through google books shows that most entries are as listings of NGOs or tangential references in the context of other subjects. In short there doesn't appear to be enough material out there to independently source the article so it fails WP:V, WP:ORG and WP:RS Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:24, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete as per reasons above (it's advertising for a non-notable org).Bali ultimate (talk) 03:17, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Refimprove Needs editing and better references. Seems like it could be notable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:03, 9 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, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - uhm, Google News has 207 hits. Easily establish notability the usual way. See [37] [38] [39] and so forth. Wily D 14:25, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep Needs better references, but as WilyD demonstrates, the references are available and therefore notability is established. Theseeker4 (talk) 15:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 06:09, 16 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. Schuym1 (talk) 17:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JWChat

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Schuym1 (talk) 00:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreed. This isn't some old program that has been around and is "obviously" notable either. Newer program, not notable. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 00:23, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable as probably the leading free software web IM client. Spiral Staircase (talk) 04:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably isn't good enough. It's not confirmed. Even if it was the leading free software web IM client, it does not show notability unless the software has significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Schuym1 (talk) 04:30, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK then :)
    JWChat article on linux.com
    
    It has significant coverage by way of inclusion in debian, ubuntu, and freebsd ports
    
    There are several articles on the ejabberd community site (The search is for the relevant protocols, so should bring up any similar programs). http://www.ejabberd.im/ carries some weight because it is the main community site for ejabberd which in turn is a very popular XMPP Server (Instant_messaging#User_base shows 20 million users). http://www.ejabberd.im is the first google result for ejabberd (higher than the main ejabberd site!)
    
    There are similar JWChat articles for other major XMPP servers.
    
    There's a list of jabber clients at http://www.jabber.org/web/Clients many of which have pages here. JWChat is at least as significant as some of those included.
    
    JWChat is notable because it's an impressive programming feat. It's quite unusual for a program of this sophistication to be independent of the webserver.
    
    I've added more content to the article and would appreciate feedback. Spiral Staircase (talk) 18:45, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I moved a lot of that content into the lead section to make a stronger claim of notability. You really need to work in a couple of citations from newspapers/websites (reliable ones) that are talking ABOUT it, not just mentioning it. Then I would be happy. Can't speak for others. The problem I had was that I looked and didn't find any. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 20:39, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Schuym1 (talk) 08:34, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom and per lack of notability. Newer software _David ^WS _(contribs) 02:45, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notability established the usual way. No need to make a special exception in this case. Wily D 14:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Having never heard of this, I did some reading and then sourcing the article. I believe it passes notability. ^Law_shoot! 22:05, 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mindwipe

AfDs for this article:

This article is pure own research, cites no sources, and gives no indication of the notability of the subject. Jerry delusional � kangaroo 00:01, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the first AFD at this title has nothing to do with this article, it was about a fictional character. Please disregard it when discussing the article nominated here. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 00:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Well, yeah, the nominator pretty much summed it up. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - Original research, no sources, not notable...basically restating the nom _David ^WS _(contribs) 01:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Erase for being original research that covers a number of other terms that are better handled within those universes. Maybe there is a way to create a meaningful article that touches on the different ways erasing someone's brain in part is used as punishment in fiction, but it would require a complete rewrite anyway. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 01:41, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy ~~delete~~ wipe: where are the sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexius08 (talk • contribs)
Keep - see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mental emetic, which deleted one of my very first ever articles, from 2005. 'Mental emetic' and 'mind enema' were the Red Dwarf equivalents of mindwipe. It's actually a pretty common science fiction meme. It just needs someone to write a decent article on it. - Richard Cavell (talk) 10:23, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - by the way, I hope that people realise that the first AfD is on a Transformers character. This article is on a different topic entirely. - Richard Cavell (talk) 10:40, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - As I stated above, there *may* be a chance to write an article, but it would require a complete rewrite. It would have to be adequately sourced from the start and the notability explained clearly. I am not sure it would have this title. This article just isn't it and is too far away from what the standard would be. Maybe starting out in userspace and getting some other users input first, to see if it developed. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 12:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's one of the plot devices in Alfred Bester's The Demolished Man. However, whilst I am able to find literary analysis of TDM and a source that documents capital punishment (both a machine that effects it and a replacement for it) in Babylon 5, I am unable to find a source that links even just those two works of fiction together under one single umbrella, let alone one that also pulls in Red Dwarf. Collecting and listing examples of ocurrences of a particular concept in fiction does not magically create an encyclopaedia article about the concept itself. (See User:Uncle G/Cargo cult encyclopaedia article writing.) We don't have a source that states that this is a trope, and that collects all of these examples under one umbrella. Our doing so would be original research. We certainly don't have a source that discusses mind wiping in science fiction.
  There's an opportunity here for an enterprising literary critic to document a theme that hasn't heretofore been documented. But that opportunity must be taken up outside of Wikipedia.
  In the meantime, here's an opportunity for an enterprising Wikipedia editor: Take page 73 of ISBN 9780786429165 in hand and try to work that analysis somewhere into our Babylon 5 articles. Uncle G (talk) 20:23, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely unsourced original research. Jay32183 (talk) 20:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:15, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While the article is currently unsourced, sources certainly exist for this. Please do not WP:SNOW this, and Delete voters, please check back in a day or two, as I will be improving it. Jclemens (talk) 18:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —Jclemens (talk) 18:16, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Use in multiple science fiction under multiple names. We can collect them together, while looking for a general source, for the concept is notable. DGG (talk) 09:11, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that the concept is likely worth an article, but it would require a complete rewrite, and rename, would it not? That is the basis for my delete here, and there isn't any substance here to base a proper article on. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 01:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - As is, this AfD will likely close before I get to my B5 source materials, which happen to be at work. Would you support an extension on this AfD to give me a chance to make improvements? Jclemens (talk) 01:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Request userfication right now and get it over with, in that case. There's nothing in the article of sufficient value that it couldn't easily be rewritten from scratch in five minutes anyway. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Chris sums it up best, there just isn't anything worth saving. Recreate. I would love to see this done properly. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 11:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We are not a dictionary, and this is just a dictdef which says "common term for the erasing of memory in science fiction". As is absolutely typical with these cases, there are no reliable secondary sources which discuss that phenomenon itself, and as such having an article on the subject based on the aggregation of multiple primary sources is total WP:SYN. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttp://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article441128.ece

[2] ttp://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5297958.stm

[3] ttp://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Microphone-gaffe

[1]

[2]

[3]