Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 August 4
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Dragon Ball. PhilKnight (talk) 14:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Planet Namek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This article asserts zero notability through reliable sources. It deserves a two-three sentence mention in the main series article, but not a whole article that is simply plot repetition culled from other Dragon Ball articles plot sections. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, it's not that important, the article is barely worked on and it's almost irrelevent anyway because there are only two DB-related articles that actually link there. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 00:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge' per nominator's suggestion to point to a "two-three sentence mention in the main series article".--Troikoalogo (talk) 00:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Roast it and serve it up with Saiyan sauce, er, I mean delete. Actually reluctantly. But this is merely in-universe info. There is no real world significance. The place for this would be a DZ webpage or Wiki. 70.126.47.211 (talk) 03:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)Dlohcierekim's sock (talk) 03:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per Troikoalogo. It would seem that a list article would be more appropriate, but I seem to recall that getting deleted recently, too. JuJube (talk) 03:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as not having a chance to be ever more than a plot summary, or merge and/or redirect to Namekian until that article can be cleaned up as well (cutting back slowly). – sgeureka t•c 05:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep in some capacity as it does get at least some Google books hits, which means the information can be verified in multiple primary and secondary sources. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 08:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Uh, most of the books are dragon ball z magazines, which is a primary source. The other ones are irrelevant. Pie is good (Apple is the best) 20:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Magazines are reliable secondary sources. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 20:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No real world significance. Merge would also be acceptable. Doceirias (talk) 20:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. John254 00:03, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Jon Courtney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Singer/songwriter in middlingly-notable alternative band. Most of the article, and the references, are about his band. I don't see any reason for a separate article, myself. Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 23:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect to the band. Seems like a logical enough choice, doesn't even require AfD in my opinion. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 23:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Weak neutral. May meet WP:MUSIC independently of the band but I'm not certain. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 23:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Brought here because it was AFD'd four months ago (link here), when it was kept (but most of the Keep !votes appeared to be "he's notable" IMHO). Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 23:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Even so, I think {{merge}} would've been a better idea. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 23:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Brought here because it was AFD'd four months ago (link here), when it was kept (but most of the Keep !votes appeared to be "he's notable" IMHO). Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 23:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: The first half of the page deals with work outside PRR. WP:MUSIC "members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band". If you see this, the Sunset Sound (Jon's previous band) is in its own right notable enough for an article, so nobody can argue that his page doesn't fulfill WP:MUSIC. Ironholds 23:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Um ... Sunset Sound appear only to be a precursor to PRR - they are mentioned as such in PRR's article, and don't appear to have independent notability - unless anyone knows better of course... Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 00:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have to assume from that that you didn't follow the link; if you would have found independent notability. Releases with a different lineup to PRR, a different type of music (both showing independence from this band) and citations/reviews from notable media sources. Ironholds 00:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- They probably need their own article, in that case. Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 00:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have to assume from that that you didn't follow the link; if you would have found independent notability. Releases with a different lineup to PRR, a different type of music (both showing independence from this band) and citations/reviews from notable media sources. Ironholds 00:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Um ... Sunset Sound appear only to be a precursor to PRR - they are mentioned as such in PRR's article, and don't appear to have independent notability - unless anyone knows better of course... Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 00:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll create that in the morning, then; I haven't been bothered so far due to the lack of need and working on other projects (an entire city, for example ;p) but i'll have it up by 2PM GMT. Ironholds 02:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- TravellingCari 00:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep. There was a recent AfD for this article that resulted in a 'keep' decision and nothing has really changed since then, so I see no reason to have another AfD. If a merge is appropriate, then a merge should be suggested—another AfD is not the right way to go about considering a merge. Bondegezou (talk) 10:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The Sunset Sound is now up; asserts notability independent of PRR and gives Courtney notability under WP:MUSIC. Ironholds 01:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep. I have argued this case before, so please check the last AfD to see my opinions on the matter. In brief, Courtney fulfills WP:MUSIC on several grounds (even though he only needs to fulfill it on one). He has written notable songs, is a member of several notable acts, has played headline tours etc etc. I will not contribute further to this discussion; please see the long and tedious debate with Justpassinby from February. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thedarkfourth (talk • contribs) 18:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Concerns over reliable sources, verifiability and WP:BIO. The neutrals notwithstanding, there is no evidence that this person meets the inclusion criteria, as indicated by the lack of sources provided. PeterSymonds (talk) 21:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Cautionary note: I moved Sarah Johns (singer) to Sarah Johns since the qualifier was no longer needed. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 21:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sarah Johns (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
While the singer of the same name is no doubt notable, I see nothing that makes this voice actress with a permastub page notable. When searching for her name and various keywords I'm finding nothing of relevance. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!) 22:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note If this page is deleted, I will be moving Sarah Johns (singer) to this title, as the qualifier will no longer be needed. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!) 22:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep notable voice actress and reliable sources are found about her on a search (e.g. sara johns voice actress). If it is kept, I would suggest moving this page to "Sarah Johns (voice actress)" and making the "Sarah Johns" page a disambiguation Frank Anchor Talk to me 22:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If you've found a source, then add it to the article. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!) 23:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 01:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1518579/ IMDb.com says she did voice work for more than 40 episodes of Gundam Seed aka Mobile Suit Gundam Seed.--Eastmain (talk) 01:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- IMDb is not a reliable source. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 23:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 23:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I'm having trouble finding any WP:RS and WP:V sourcing for the voice actress, and I don't see any cited in the article or in this discussion. Unless that changes, delete and relocate the notable country singer to this title. user:j (aka justen) 23:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral, I guess. I wish I knew if this was a hoax or just inaccessible information. --Eastmain (talk) 23:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral. Even though I created the page a long time ago, I don't really have an opinion on whether it should be deleted or not. The original sources I got some of the information on aren't really citable, I suppose because they were credits from television (Class of the Titans) or from DVDs (Gundam Seed). EikaKou (talk) 03:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- delete I see no evidence of significant roles, cult following, significant contributions." I got Google news hits for a singer of the same name, but not for the actress. The external links provided do not help the cause. Dlohcierekim's sock (talk) 03:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Even supposing it is not a hoax, I don't think it's notable. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 03:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Withdrawn. I'm going to try and write an article about Period Pains (band), which as Ironholds says, would make this AfD moot. Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 23:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Chloe Alper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Her band is undoubtedly notable, but is she? Previously in a band which I'd heard of (Period Pains) but who don't have an article, most of this article is about her current band, not her. I don't think she's independently notable. Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 23:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:MUSIC; "Members of two notable bands are generally notable enough for their own article." Since Chloe has been part of two notable bands, the "independent notability" point is moot. Ironholds 23:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:MUSIC. Ironholds 23:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, "Generally", and that does depend on whether Period Pains are notable. They don't have an article and I'm pretty sure they fail nearly every bit of WP:MUSIC, unless a single that made #87 in the charts and a John Peel session is notable. Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 23:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually yes, a nationally charting single is notable. Per WP:MUSIC. Ironholds 23:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, "Generally", and that does depend on whether Period Pains are notable. They don't have an article and I'm pretty sure they fail nearly every bit of WP:MUSIC, unless a single that made #87 in the charts and a John Peel session is notable. Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 23:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to Period Pains (band). The band are notable having for a chart single, though she isn't notable independently of the band. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 23:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. John254 00:02, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Anomalon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No notice anywhere except at William Corliss's unreliable source website. Simply not a notable fringe theory, sorry. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. ScienceApologist didn't bother to look for it. [1][2] 71.194.184.182 (talk) 00:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The IP's GoogleScholar and GoogleBooks search results show that the term has indeed been in substantial use in physics and there is significant coverage by reliable sources, albeit most of it apparently negative, e.g. this article in Physical Review Letters[3]. It is clear in view of these results that the topic is notable in the sense of WP:N. The article requires clean-up for balance and addition of sources, but not deletion. Nsk92 (talk) 00:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per 71.194.184.182 and NSK My goodness. 94 Google books hits noted above. I see 280 Google Scholar hits. This looks like significant coverage to me. Perhaps all this info could be incorporated into the article to give it balance, thorough coverage. pro's and con's. fringe theory vs breakthrough. that sort of thing. Dlohcierekim's sock (talk) 03:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- make it a strong per Nealparr. What's good enough for paper is good enough for not paper. Dlohcierekim's sock (talk) 20:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Encarta, which deems it notable enough to have an article on it.[4] --Nealparr (talk to me) 07:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Keeper ǀ 76 16:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- MultiLoad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Unreferenced article which does not assert notabilty -- JediLofty UserTalk 15:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral: I would say that "The Teradata MultiLoad utility gives users an efficient way to deal with batch maintenance of large databases" is, in fact, an assertion of notability. What did your research turn up in terms of references? RGTraynor 16:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge: MultiLoad is one of a set of related utilities from Teradata (listed in the company's article). Looks like there's independent coverage of the Teradata products (apparently including books?). Since they're so closely related, it might make more sense to have one article on them all, or just to cover them in the article on Teradata. -- Jaeger5432 | Talk 14:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No indication of how this is notable. Dearth of WP:V, WP:RS. Cheers, Dlohcierekim's sock (talk) 03:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom This is a 1.5 year old article with a total lack of reliable sources. Artene50 (talk) 03:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete. The article reads like a product webpage. I tried to summarize it in my head, but most of the words evaporated like marketing-speak, leaving perhaps two sentences of pretty generic stuff. The entire suite of utilities should be covered in the company's article anyway, if that is the only major thing they make. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 10:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom.--Dmol (talk) 11:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 18:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Dance Gavin Dance (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Per WP:MUSIC, unreleased albums are not notable without substantial coverage in reliable, third-party sources. None provided, none found. Mdsummermsw (talk) 15:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 18:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tikiwont (talk) 10:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - note that duplicate article The Death Star Album also exists........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Since the title "the Death Star album" is little more than fan speculation, I've redirected it to Dance Gavin Dance (album). This might also bing in a few more !votes here. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 12:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unable to assert notability for the album per nom. Also note Untitled Dance Gavin Dance album. CultureDrone (talk) 18:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Untitled Dance Gavin Dance album should be the only article for this album seeming that The Death Star Album is speculation. Untitled Dance Gavin Dance album is also properly cited now. Zeropunk16 (talk) 18:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - however the references now cited all appear to be blogs/discussion boards, and may therefore not count as reliable independent sources. CultureDrone (talk) 20:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The reference on there is from Absolutepunk.net, an extremely reputable source for this type of music. web250 (talk) 17:13, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Actually, the source on there now is a forum thread, which is an unreliable souce no matter who hosts it. (Also, WP:MUSIC calls for substantial coverage, which the source isn't, and sources.) - Mdsummermsw (talk) 12:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete both There are no good sources found for either album. The source for the main album is a forum thread and thus not reliable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 22:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per TPH. Very little to go on notability wise for the moment. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 04:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete an unsourced future album by a band that itself doesnt pass notability guidelines. --neon white talk 14:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete, consensus is that this article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 18:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Troy Thirdgill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable comedian, cannot find non-trivial mentions in reliable, independent sources Somno (talk) 04:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Non-notable. Rob Banzai (talk) 14:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep - I have found a few reliable resources that explain him ([5][6][7]). Seems notable enough for me. I'll add these sources to the article anyway. Thanks, RyRy (talk) 01:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
RyRy (talk) 01:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]Done Feel free to comment. Thanks,
- The first link is his personal website and the other two are advertisements that contain promotional text likely provided by Thirdgill or his agent. They don't support notability. Somno (talk) 01:52, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Heh, thanks for catching that. I'll be staying neutral for now until it's this comedians is notable or not. Thanks, RyRy (talk) 03:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete The sites are not reliable sources and don't establish his notability. They're primarily promotional sites or the subject's own web site. Artene50 (talk) 03:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - There are plenty of event listings which name him, but unable to find any reliable sources about him. -- Whpq (talk) 16:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 118th Regiment of Foot. lifebaka++ 15:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 118th Regiment of Foot (1794) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
In accordance with Wikipedia Rules, the reasons for deletion of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/118th_Regiment_of_Foot_(1794) are as follows:
No context. Very short articles lacking sufficient context to identify the subject of the article. Example: "He is a funny man with a red car. He makes people laugh." Context is different from content, treated in A3, below.
No content. Any article (other than disambiguation pages and redirects, including soft redirects) consisting only of external links, category tags and "see also" sections, a rephrasing of the title, attempts to correspond with the person or group named by its title, chat-like comments, template tags and/or images. However, a very short article may be a valid stub if it has context, in which case it is not eligible for deletion under this criterion. Similarly, this criterion doesn't cover a page with an infobox with non-trivial information.
An article about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amishjedi (talk • contribs) 18:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. What you quote are guidelines for speedy deletion, and none of those apply here. But you brought this article to the AfD, so what should be examined is if this regiment is notable enough to have an article here.
In my opinion a regiment during the Second British Empire has a certain inherent notability, but since I don't know of a policy that covers it (except WP:Notability of course) I will not give a !vote. --Amalthea (talk) 21:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply] - Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Further comment. There definitely is context and content. While the article needs expansion, I had no trouble understanding what it is about.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep While the article is short, it is sourced and clearly states what it is about. Edward321 (talk) 22:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Question. Is a regiment by definition notable? If not, then I see no reason to keep this stub as it provides no truly notable aspect or notable information other than formation and disbandment, which isn't remarkably notable either. I'd like to keep it for possible expansion, but the info here serves little more than a red link would. --Trippz (talk) 05:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that a regiment is inherently notable. I doubt there's any definitive policy on this specifically, but the article satisfies WP:V and WP:NPOV, and otherwise looks pretty solid. -FrankTobia (talk) 00:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that regiments have a certain notability, but why can not all three articles in the disambiguation page, 118th Regiment of Foot be merged into one article with that title, which is of course what people will search for. They are all part of the British Army. Merge all three to 118th Regiment of Foot. --Bduke (talk) 04:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with that, provided the consensus is that a regiment is notable (I still have some doubts). But if the conclusion is keep, then the mentioned articles should be merged. Good catch. --Trippz (talk) 08:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - a regiment is a very substantial military unit which seems to justify inherent notability. If the 3 118th Foot regts were different, then it seems to make for greater clarity if they also have separate articles.. HeartofaDog (talk) 12:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge Since they isn't any info beyond when it was raised, put all 3 articles together. That are all regiments of the same army in the 1760s with the same name, they can share the same article Drunken Pirate (talk) 20:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge. This is a clear a case for merge as can be found. A user cannot be expected to know that the regimental number was reused three times. The article is two sentences long. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 03:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles characters. lifebaka++ 15:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable fictional character / toy. PhilKnight (talk) 21:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge somewhere. We should have at least some coverage of good 'ol Ace Duck. (which may be a paragraph or a single sentence.. not sure right now..)-- Ned Scott 05:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Ned Scott 05:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Esn (talk) 22:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/Redirect per above. Wizardman 16:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll go along with a merge along the lines outlined above. Hiding T 17:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Gazimoff 23:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Small Towns Big Dreams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Fails WP:N, doesn't assert notability, and g-hits bring up nothing. Leonard(Bloom) 15:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 18:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 18:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Non -Notable show. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 08:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Protonk (talk) 20:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What would be the criteria for establishing notability be here? This is a television program produced by NDTV, a large Indian production company. Similar programs on American and British television are apparently considered notable and have articles. The program is listed as a nominee for an award at http://www.ntawards.tv/nominees.htm, if that matters. Theshibboleth (talk) 21:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No sourcing to demonstrate verifiability, and notability is suspect. Not opposed to changing my !vote in light of new evidence. -FrankTobia (talk) 00:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Oddly, I can't find a notability guideline relevant specifically to non-fictional television shows, but it seems perhaps that Wikipedia:Notability (films) may be the closest thing. As far as I can see, it doesn't come close to qualifying. For one thing, the award mentioned above doesn't satisfy "The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking." Firstly, it didn't actually receive that reward. Secondly, I doubt that the NT award could be classified as "major". A criteria it comes vaguely close to satisfying "The film was successfully distributed domestically in a country that is not a major film producing country, and was produced by that country's equivalent of a 'major film studio.' Articles on such a film should assert that the film in question was notable for something more than merely having been produced, and if any document can be found to support this, in any language, it should be cited." - the one criterion it doesn't meet here is that India is most definitely a major film producer. According to the article on India itself, "The Indian film industry is the largest in the world." Nousernamesleft (talk) 22:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Jim Callahan (magician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The only notability for this person stems from an incident between him and Criss Angel, and thus I believe that WP:BLP1E firmly applies. RFerreira (talk) 19:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Yeah, this is fodder for WP:BLP1E. I'm always very skeptical of any situation where someone's notability hinges on their connection to another notable person. Trusilver 22:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhilKnight (talk) 14:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- British Invaders (podcast) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I don't think this podcast is notable enough - only one external source, a review. Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 17:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related page;
- List of BritishInvaders episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Delete - Does not appear notable to me. - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, I created this page today (my first wiki entry), and have increased the links greatly since it was tagged. Do you have any suggestions for what would be required to make it more notable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wedit sci (talk • contribs)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]- It needs to be shown that the topic is notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopaedia. For Wikipedia, the inclusion criteria for this type of article is significant coverage in reliable sources - see Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (web) for more information. --AmaltheaTalk 23:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, because I can't find any such reliable coverage. It's admittedly hard to search for though. --AmaltheaTalk 23:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Sorry, I can't find any mainstream coverage Computerjoe's talk 18:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- John James Michaelson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
non notable man Burningjoker (talk) 22:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete. Extracted from Matthew Alexander King's World War III Trilogy, an excercise in original research and most definitely a non-notable film. Ros0709 (talk) 22:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, lack of reliable sources for verifiability, notability and raises original research concerns. Davewild (talk) 18:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Matthew Alexander King's World War III Trilogy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Delete - proposal for a movie. No indication of notability. Google searches for "Matthew Alexander King" and "World War III Trilogy" are not fruitful. Contested prod. ... discospinster talk 22:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Wikipedia:Notability_(films) and probably WP:OR. Ros0709 (talk) 22:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Per WP:NFF, movies must have begun principal photography to be worthy of an article, in most cases. In this case, we can't even tell whether there is a studio that has seen the proposal. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 22:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete. Original fiction. Wikipedia is not a free host. Etc. Sgroupace (talk) 01:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Cliff smith talk 05:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:MADEUP. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete per Wikipedia:Notabilty & WP:MADEUP. Not a source in the entire article, which smacks of Wikipedia:OR. And if its here only as a place to post a proposal, is a violation of Wikipedia:COI. Schmidt (talk) 05:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as OR or original work... which should be included there really... Plus, clearly fails WP:N, WP:MOVIE. WP:NOTWEBHOST applies, god it should be easier to delete this stuff. But unfortunately, no Speedy Criteria apply. That's all the links I'm going to spit at you right now. Ooh, this could be the first deletion I would apply WP:IAR. - Toon05 20:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Keep arguments failed to refute delete arguments by provide sources to establish the association's notability. lifebaka++ 15:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Association of Nene River Clubs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
A search for references has failed to find significant coverage in reliable sources in order to comply with notability requirements.
This has included web searches for news coverage, books, and journals, which can be seen from the following links:
2008 August 4 – news, books, scholar
Consequently, this article is about a subject that appears to lack sufficient notability. Burningjoker (talk) 22:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. User:Renata creates some very nice articles. Unfortunately, some of them happen to be on non-notable topics. This umbrella organization is one of them, even though some of its members might be notable. Renata also has a different notion of notability than the Wikipedia consensus view. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 22:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't delete. If this deliberate targetting of my "very nice articles" continues, I won't be writing any more of them. Can't you guys give me a break and pick on someone your own size??? Renata (talk) 23:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have "picked on" only those articles that have no reliable sources whatsoever. I am the same size as you. They aren't really your articles, per WP:OWN. You have created 117 articles since June 12, 2008, and about 95% of them are fine. But there are millions of charities in the UK, and not all of them are notable. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 01:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "there are millions of charities in the UK, and not all of them are notable."
Is that a policy somewhere? There aren't millions of UK charities and every one has already proven its "notability" (in their local sense) to the charity commissioners. if anything, there's an argument that genuine UK charities are de facto notable, just for having achieved official recognition as such. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "there are millions of charities in the UK, and not all of them are notable."
- Delete. According to the Association's website it has a Captain, who is on one page called Ray Brackpool and on another John Brown- so the ANRCs site doesn't provide reliable information on its own organisation. The text of the article is derived entirely from this website. Ning-ning (talk) 16:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Navigation section of River Nene, placing some of the external links as footnotes. Contrary to Phlegm Rooster's assertion the artilce is not quite unreferenced, also his estimate of the number of charities is probably too high, and certainly there are many small ones that do not warrant having an article. I have no idea whether the Association is truly notable, but this is useful information which it would be a pity ot lose. The presetn article would almost certainly not merit being expanded. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The Association is an umbrella organisation. There is room for expansion on this article, especially on the history. The Association is notable because it is one of the instigators and main players in the Cambridgeshire Boatwatch Scheme. If the Association article gets deleted, the members of the Association will probably (time permitting) get articles of their own, with reference to the Association. Renata (talk) 07:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The ANRC will have a meeting at Titchmarsh Mill at 8 p.m. on Friday 7th September. It may be that the ANRC website (which User:Renata used as the source of the article) will be updated thereafter, with more information. Ning-ning (talk) 09:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Google isn't the sole arbiter of whether something exists or is notable. It's a notable river, with notable organisations on it that have chosen to arrange themselves into an umbrella group. That's notable. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- True, Google is not the sole arbiter. But so far no sources have been provided that Google couldn't find. Going by the sources on the article and the ones returned above, there is nothing notable about the Association. As for the connections with other associations, lateral or vertical, no entity operates in a vacuum. There are many examples of notable companies whose holding companies are not notable, and in their cases the connection is not voluntary. None of the clubs making up the association currently have an article. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 17:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's only because I haven't had time to write these articles yet, along with many others on the List of waterway societies in the United Kingdom. It's a big project... Renata (talk) 19:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- True, Google is not the sole arbiter. But so far no sources have been provided that Google couldn't find. Going by the sources on the article and the ones returned above, there is nothing notable about the Association. As for the connections with other associations, lateral or vertical, no entity operates in a vacuum. There are many examples of notable companies whose holding companies are not notable, and in their cases the connection is not voluntary. None of the clubs making up the association currently have an article. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 17:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've just read your user page. Are you proud of that? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Mostly copyvio. It's a thankless task. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 00:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sure many of them were worthless cruft that didn't deserve inclusion. However that's no reason to collect a gallery of shrunken heads. That merely encourages those who "keep score" for how many articles they can cause to be deleted, and it makes you yourself appear to be one of them. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In each case an admin actually did the deleting. Perhaps you are right, however, about the keeping score (rather than keeping track). Maybe I'll hide them on a subpage, if I can figure out how to make one. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 18:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sure many of them were worthless cruft that didn't deserve inclusion. However that's no reason to collect a gallery of shrunken heads. That merely encourages those who "keep score" for how many articles they can cause to be deleted, and it makes you yourself appear to be one of them. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Mostly copyvio. It's a thankless task. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 00:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've just read your user page. Are you proud of that? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I have now brought this matter to the attention of Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Waterways (of which I'm a member) so that the other members can take part in the discussion.Renata (talk) 19:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a vote. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 00:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's OK, that's not canvassing. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. PhilKnight (talk) 14:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Steven L. Toronto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
A lawyer, but not an especially significant one, is he? Biruitorul Talk 22:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The author messed up the syntax of his wikilinks, and that's why they turn up as redlinks. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 22:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Very minor Olympics-related functionary. If there is some big legal brouhaha, he may get his name in the papers, but until then, he's not notable. The only article about him not by his company is the MormonTimes piece, and that's a very short "local boy makes good" story, that a thousand local papers publish the like of every day. --GRuban (talk) 17:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 notability and a clear WP:BLP1E. Davewild (talk) 18:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Shannon Service (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Her "notability" consists in unfurling a banner and getting kicked out of China for it. Destined to be a permanent stub. Biruitorul Talk 22:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -Fairly unremarkable person. Only famous for an event without an article. -Inzweep (talk) 22:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fairly trivial WP:BLP1E. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 22:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a news item rather than a bio -- Whpq (talk) 16:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per everyone. --GRuban (talk) 17:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete, consensus is that this is not notable. Davewild (talk) 18:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Communist Chinese Olympic Accountability Bill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Merely a legislative proposal. No real notability; no evidence it even exists (the link is broken). Biruitorul Talk 22:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -[8] Introduced months ago, not even debated yet. Olympics will be over by the time Congress is back in session. No brainer. -Inzweep (talk) 22:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. per Inzweep. This is one bill that won't even go in the history books of failed bills. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 22:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Inzweep. It will be redundant in a few days time when the Olympics start on August 8. Artene50 (talk) 03:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I don't see any evidence this is more notable than any of the other bills pigeonholed in committee. --Phirazo 15:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This should be placed/merged to another article about Chinese Olympics, but until this is done, I would keep to ensure that valid content was not lost.Biophys (talk) 14:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Concerns over the 2008 Summer Olympics is already 49K. I don't see how this is important/notable enough to add to that article. I'd like to see an independent source before I'd support a merge. --Phirazo 21:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 18:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Rec.sport.cricket (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Usenet group. All references are to own site, so no evidence of WP:Notability. Comments like "one user in particular specialises in the posting of statistics only, and is the most respected regular user on the group." just go to show that it's not appropriate for an article. A similar AfD was held on its soccer branch. пﮟოьεԻ 57 21:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete' Fails general notability guideliines as, with most newsgroups, no reliable source coverage found. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 21:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Although Rec.sport may deserve an Article, individual newsgroups would have to prove WP:N beyond all shadow of doubt. DMOZhandles it quiet efficiently. All the references being to groups.google.com/group is troubling also. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 07:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 18:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The Story of Tohoshi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Delete - school play, not notable. Contested prod. ... discospinster talk 21:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "Overall the reception to The Story of Tohoshi was really positive. During the second act, the audience got into the show and were really enjoying themselves. The audience enjoyed the creativity and the wacky sense of humor. Some people found the plot hard to follow, since there were many things going on at the same time. People gave mixed reviews about the music. Some people liked the feel, setting the tone, while others believed the minor tonalities took away from the melodies of the songs." Don't think myspace is a proper reference either.-Inzweep (talk) 22:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Many problems; ultimately fails WP:Notability guidelines. Marasmusine (talk) 00:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:V The 3 references are all Wikipedia sites. Artene50 (talk) 03:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete bully for the class, but it's not notable. JuJube (talk) 03:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and Marasmusine. Cliff smith talk 05:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. lifebaka++ 15:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Mike Neal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Procedural nom. I've declined a speedy request on this as I think there's enough of an assertion of notability (founder of multiple listed corporations) there to stand, but I'm not convinced there's necessarily enough to warrant a WP article on him. Procedural nom so I abstain. – iridescent 21:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Further note Special:Contributions/MonicaRMiller needs to be watched very carefully – while I am happy to stand up and say I don't think MyWikiBiz should ever have been banned, it's grossly hypocritical for MWB to be banned whilst allowing this kind of thing. – iridescent 22:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding the declination of speedy, how is "founder of multiple listed corporations" an assertion of notability? I see no guideline like that on WP:BIO, although if there is such a guideline please do let me know.-Samuel Tan 08:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:COMMON applies here. "Significant figure in multiple major corporations" implies "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded", quite aside from providing reasonable grounds to assume that, if true, reliable sources will exist. I wish all the deletionists and drive-by speedy taggers would actually read WP:CSD, in particular "to avoid speedy deletion an article does not have to prove that its subject is notable, just give a reasonable indication of why it might be notable". – iridescent 13:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just want to clarify: (1) Are you saying that the criteria for inclusion of articles is that the article is significant, interesting, or unusual? I always thought the criterion was that spelled out in WP:N, which is based on sourcing, not on editor's opinions on the nature of the article itself. (2) Concerning the speedy, well, looks like this is a matter of different interpretations of the phrase "reasonable indication", so yup WP:AFD is the right place for this article to be *grin* -Samuel Tan 13:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not a personal opinion of mine, that's a direct quote from the lead paragraph of WP:BIO. ("Within Wikipedia, notability is an inclusion criterion based on the encyclopedic suitability of an article topic. The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded." Notable in the sense of being "famous", or "popular" – although not irrelevant – is secondary.") – iridescent 14:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmm *ponder* looks like we have different views regarding what WP:BIO is trying to say. How confusing. Anyway, I'll leave this mini-thread for now so the AFD procedure can get on. Cheers! -Samuel Tan 15:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not a personal opinion of mine, that's a direct quote from the lead paragraph of WP:BIO. ("Within Wikipedia, notability is an inclusion criterion based on the encyclopedic suitability of an article topic. The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded." Notable in the sense of being "famous", or "popular" – although not irrelevant – is secondary.") – iridescent 14:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep To provide grounds for keeping this entry, I'd like to provide additional detail as to why Mike Neal is notable. A quick google search of his name along with the companies he has founded will come up with a variety of significant references across business and trade press. Both companies he founded (DemandTec and SignalDemand) have considerably large, brand-name companies as clients: Cargill, Hormel, Safeway, Walmart, Office Depot, etc, which use Mike Neal's software to drive profits. His company SignalDemand is especially being recognized for its innovation in SaaS technology and for the work they are doing to combat food price volatility, an issue of global concern: BloggingStocks.com, Tom Taulli "SignalDemand: Using Math to Solve Food Problems". I would appreciate help editing this entry to meet wikipedia standards for inclusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MonicaRMiller (talk • contribs) 17:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: MonicaRMiller is the author of the page (to disclose per WP:AFD#How to discuss an AfD)-Samuel Tan 07:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- strong delete - per WP:BIO and WP:BLP, possibly speedy delete. (1) The article right now is very poorly sourced. The citations are either non-secondary (company websites) or do not have Mike Neal as their subjects (patent pages). Per WP:BLP, "Material about living persons must be sourced very carefully." (2) I was not able to find reliable secondary sources that cover Mike Neal. Most online reliable sources (e.g. this site)cover mainly the companies he founded, which already have their own articles. -Samuel Tan 08:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. PhilKnight (talk) 14:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete, consensus is that this article is not required. Davewild (talk) 17:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Elder Gods (Mortal Kombat) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Article is unnecessary, since this topic already has its own section in the MK minor characters article. Plus, many lesser MK-related pages were expunged because they were insignificant and in-universe, and did not warrant their own articles. This one falls under that category. Beemer69 chitchat 21:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 21:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination. RobJ1981 (talk) 23:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Finish them per nom. Not necessary. JuJube (talk) 04:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and Button, Left, Left, Up, Down, Left, Button. --Trippz (talk) 10:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, WP:V and WP:RS. Cliff smith talk 17:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Toasty! — An unencyclopedic article which is already covered in another article. MuZemike (talk) 00:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Completely in-universe and already covered.D3l8 (talk) 03:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 17:52, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Lazaro Lazo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable member of two bands that are currently up for AfD (Audio Disturbances and Jennifer Culture). Given that the only arguments for keeping those articles are that other members of the bands later joined further bands - but Lazo didn't - then he clearly fails WP:BIO. Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 20:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:MUSIC -- Darth Mike (Talk • Contribs) 20:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep, per WP Music. Lazo was in at least one notable band, perhaps two or three if one does research (including an early band of Gavin DeGraw, )therefore, he appears to be notable.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.156.170.194 (talk • contribs)
- Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 04:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. BRMo (talk) 04:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete, due to the lack of reliable sources to verify or establish notability. Davewild (talk) 17:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Murdered Out (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No reliable sources. A google search for ("murdered out" "bobby light") gives only forum hits. I can't figure out whether this album actually exists. -- Darth Mike (Talk • Contribs) 20:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. With 1 million + downloads, one would think this search would turn up at least one site where this album can be downloaded. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 22:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:N and WP:V Does Wikipedia do articles on someone's 'unofficial album'? I think not. Artene50 (talk) 03:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Indeed it is remarkable that such a popular album has no sources at all. Axl (talk) 15:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- According to the userpage of the article's creator (User:Liaden Graham), he is age 14 and "the owner of GrahamWORKS records, which releases songs before they are officially released". Axl (talk) 15:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This is a WP:COI Artene50 (talk) 10:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. John254 00:02, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ChunkIt! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
nn browser addon, previously AFDed here Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Chunkit! ccwaters (talk) 19:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem I've encountered most with trying to put an article on wikipedia is the user response when an article is put up for deletion. I don't mind having the article scheduled for deletion, as long as there is some constructive feedback for me to work with. As I stated in the talk page, I've thoroughly read the "what is notable and what isn't" article, so please don't ask me to do so. Wikipedia is a community run encyclopedia, anyone can edit it, yes, but it is the people like Ccwaters (and anyone else that responds to this) that really makes this website work out well. But Ccwaters (sorry to use you as an example), you haven't given me any constructive feedback. All you said was "nn browser add on". I will infer "nn" to be non-notable (I'm not well versed in Wikipedia jargon), but on the talk page I explained how I feel it is notable. I could find 10 other articles that can be considered "nn" under the same circumstances in which my article has been proposed for deletion. I'm taking the time to really try and understand why the article is being deleted (clearly considering this is my 5th time submitting the article), so I hope that the next person that responds can take the time to explain what I can do to make it so this doesn't happen again, instead of just an acronym filled sentence that has no real depth.Mjbyrne (talk) 20:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It looks like the previous time the article was deleted it seemed too much like an advert. In this case, it seems notability is the issue, and the main way to avoid deletion on those grounds is to provide "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources", independent of Tigerlogic. I'm quoting from WP:WEB. I'll leave any further comments to the nominator, and anyone else contributing to this discuss, apart from to add that we don't usually compare an article's notability with other articles, but discuss each article up for deletion on its own merits. See WP:OSE Silverfish (talk) 23:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- weak keep I've added some more sources as external links, and I feel there are now probably enough reliable, independent sources to indicate notability. Silverfish (talk) 23:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Maybe being deleted 5 times previously is a sign that it shouldn't have an article. Its fairly obvious that the author who has RECREATED the article 5 times has a conflict of interest WP:COI and admits "I thought the product would gain some notability if it was on Wikipedia" [9]. As Silverfish stated before, pointing out other articles that might be candidates for deletion is not a valid argument here. Now, on to notability:per WP:RS, blogs are not reliable sources. I would argue the sources are weak: the best is the computerworld ref with may in fact be a bought article. That's 1, One questionable rehash of a press release. ccwaters (talk) 12:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, as currently sourced by Chronicle of Higher Education, TechCrunch, and a library association. --ZimZalaBim talk 23:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There is a clear consensus to delete. In addition, the arguments favoring deletion were based on established guidelines, such as WP:NOTABILITY, while some of the arguments in favor of keeping the article appear to be based on the misconception explained at WP:INHERITED. PhilKnight (talk) 19:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Caine (World of Darkness) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
There are no independent references to demonstrate notability of this fictional character. 99% of this material is in-universe and, while this is not a reason for deletion, once this in-universe material is deleted, there is nothing left except that "Caine is a fictional vampire who is based on the biblical story of Caine" with no evidence of notability for this character. --Craw-daddy | T | 19:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. —--Craw-daddy | T | 19:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MuZemike (talk) 20:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Zero assertion of notability through reliable sources. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- weak keep or merge The game itself is monumentally notable, and while I realize that doesn't confer notability by extension, the mythology of the world has been both used by other people for other purposes (for good or ill) and has had significant cultural impact through influence on other genre works, if they can give more substantial information and a better write-up, then it should be kept. Perhaps this is one place where the long-beaten pokemon analogy truly holds. 69.210.48.138 (talk) 20:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No notability is shown. RobJ1981 (talk) 23:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Everything therein is all original research and in-universe, with absolutely zero sources. Then there's the matter of the long "Speculation" section. Beemer69 chitchat 23:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep rewrite and source. An integral part of the fictional universe whose notability is established through the "real" version of the person. Trimming down to the introduction would remove most of the inuniverse stuff. I'm reasonably sure that independent coverage exists historically (if only from the various religious groups that objected to his use in the game). Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no assertion of notability through non-trivial coverage by reliable sources independent of the topic. The entire article is excessive plot summary, and a big chunk of that is original research. sephiroth bcr (converse) 00:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This is an article about a fictional character, but one who has been a large part of a large number of notable works, as part of the World of Darkness, probably one of the top 3 role-playing games. In that way it is comparable to articles about other fictional characters, which we have plenty of, for example Category:Forgotten Realms characters has 30 of them, Category:Video game characters has about a hundred, etc. A number of the WoD games and publications are outright named after this character, for example Sword of Caine, Caine's Chosen, etc. Reviews of the game cover Caine's story, non-trivially, as part of covering the World of Darkness, for example. This is a justifiable sub-article of the World of Darkness article. --GRuban (talk) 18:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- By the way, since when do we have to delete all the in-universe information about fictional characters? What would the Bilbo Baggins or Harry Potter (character) articles be without in-universe information? That doesn't mean we shouldn't get rid of original research, and shouldn't add more about the importance of the character to real-world publication histories, but we can certainly keep a summary of the importance of the character to the universe. --GRuban (talk) 18:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. At least two non-trivial mentions in independent sources are established in the article. Nousernamesleft (talk) 22:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- JediMUD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I declined a speedy on this article as notability of sorts is asserted however I am not sure that this "multi user dungeon" comes even close to passing WP:WEB so am bringing it to the community to decide. reliable sources are in short supply and it produces zero ghits in the news archives. nancy talk 19:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MuZemike (talk) 20:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete interesting history, but nothing in the article asserts any outside notability. The "notability" references at the end only suggest that it's popular among MUDders which does not equal widespread notoriety. JuJube (talk) 04:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How popular would a MUD have to be (amongst MUDders) to attain "notability"? Would a "# of active players" type of references satisfy this? Or are we going by external mentions of the MUD giving it notability. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 07:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:WEB requires coverage in multiple independent non-trivial sources as does the more general notability guidelines. Notability is all about being recognised in the wider world, so to answer your question, it would be the "external mentions" which will give JediMUD its notability. nancy talk 07:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- From the work that has been done to this article (although not pretty), I feel that the bar has now been passed for providing "multiple independent non-trivial sources". I would also like to point out that this article was nominated for a Speedy 1 minute after creation. This article should not have even made it to AFD IMO, even if it was procedural to do so. At what point of the Revision history was "Before nominating an article for speedy deletion, consider whether it could be improved, reduced to a stub, merged or redirected elsewhere or be handled with some other action short of deletion" enacted? Although handy TW can make things to easy, but thats a whole different argument... Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 08:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - as per my above statement. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 08:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep What can I really say? Here, in a day of the MMORPG, we have an ugly duckling. Of course, in its day it was beautiful but today, it's a relic. It's 16 years old and because of it predating the World Wide Web, much of its "notable" mentions have been lost to the day of the newsgroup. On the other hand, some handy Googling will still find hundreds of mentions of this game and how it touched peoples lives. It can be found in foreign news (such as "The Internet in Egypt"), a published novel, a resume, numerous forums and blogs, several gaming web sites and it was even mentioned on some site in Serbian. In addition to those, I also found an article on the WoW forums where WoW was accused of "borrowing" some game functionality specifically from JediMUD. Yet, there's debate about the significance and notability of this game? This is a place where people can experience, first-hand, what their MMORPGs looked like before graphics, broadband or even anything over a 486 computer? The fact that it's still running after 16 years is noteworthy. The fact that thousands of people from every continent have played there is noteworthy. The fact that its still talked about even on the likes of the WoW forum is noteworthy. Dutch B (talk) 10:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per Users Exit2DOS2000 and Dutch B. There is a sort of systemic bias when it comes to this sort of subject, since many of such sources as there were, are now lost, as Dutch B points out. It seems clear that this is a notable specimen of the type, and that the sourcing is as good as can be reasonably be expected. I second Exit2DOS2000's criticism of the excessive rush to speedy this article - but thumbs up to nominator for resisting the pressure to make an instant zap.HeartofaDog (talk) 14:02, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 18:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Influence (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Contested prod. Article is about a non-notable 20 minute film. Neither filmmaker nor production studio appear to be notable either and author's account has a conflict of interest. TN‑X-Man 19:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nomination, I thought it was a real movie until I opened the page and read the page with the red links(hate those). Therefor, deletion is appropriate. --eric (mailbox) 19:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 19:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Doesn't appear to pass notability guidelines. Bart133 t c @ How's my driving? 20:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Non-notable. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No evidence of reliable sources that might indicate notability [10]. PC78 (talk) 20:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and WP:NFF -- Darth Mike (Talk • Contribs) 20:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above reasons, notability...Not to mention blatant WP:COI issues. Neuro√Logic 22:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Cliff smith talk 05:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Heck, I could have watched the film in less time than it took to read the article. Totally unsourced. No notabilty. A Google search found nothing. Schmidt (talk) 06:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, lack of reliable sources to verify article, probably a hoax. Davewild (talk) 18:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Jewish navy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Apparent WP:HOAX. The book cited can't be found on worldcat or Goggle Books. The commander, David Berger, does not appear on a Google search[11][12]. The story sounds odd: 42 guys held the entire city of Jaffa under siege for six months? Where were the British? Nudve (talk) 19:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - absolutely no concrete evidence that the article says the truth. Probably a hoax. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 19:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No WP:RS and no WP:Verifiability. The way the story is told (a full city blockaded during six months) this event would be known. Probably an hoax. Ceedjee (talk) 20:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Probable hoax. The book cited doesn't appear to exist. Even the OUP website didn't give a result for it. Bart133 t c @ How's my driving? 20:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete in keeping with my comment on the talk page.--Gilabrand (talk) 20:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:RS and WP:V-- Darth Mike (Talk • Contribs) 20:54, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- G3 Hoax. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 21:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The nom's evidence is convincing enough. The cited book doens't exist, for one, so I'm convinced. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 22:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- sorry to join the chorus late. Prior to AfD, I'd also checked for sources. HG | Talk 05:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete, due to the lack of reliable sources to verify or establish notability. Davewild (talk) 18:59, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Clowns, The Musical! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
NN musical. Only two googlehits when searching for "Clowns, The Musical" and "Hall & Co." (the producer). — MusicMaker5376 19:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable, unsourced original research. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for non-notability. This is not WikiPlaybillPedia. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 19:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No reliable sources or verifiability. Artene50 (talk) 04:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable, unverifiable (synopsis and song listing suggest this is just a "joke" article based on Cats (musical)). Dafyd (talk) 20:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The synopsis is identical to the Cats (musical) synopsis except the word "clown" replaces "cat" every time it occurs. It's a joke, and an amateurish one at that. MarianKroy (talk) 20:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, virtually no ghits, unverifiable, and appears to fail WP:N. Also looks like a bit of a hoax. —Mizu onna sango15Hello! 20:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Utterly fails WP:V. Likely hoax. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 21:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete, consensus is that this is not valid content for wikipedia. Davewild (talk) 19:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Belarusian exonyms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I fail to understand what encyclopedic content this article has. This is just an extremely inclomplete list of English-Belarusian translations of city names. Dzied Bulbash (talk) 19:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as the article is currently completely unsourced, and the content is not completely obvious. If sources are added, I will strike my suggestion to delete, but I don't think it's an okay thing to have completely unsourced articles. CCG (T-C) 19:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please explain how this list is belong to encyclopedia. It is foreign language translation and nothing else, even with references. Dzied Bulbash (talk) 19:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Wikipedia is not a forgien phrasebook. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 19:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as per Doc Strange. Clearly fails WP:NOT. Ottre (talk) 20:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as obviously failing WP:NOT, but that isn't a speedy deletion criterion.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 20:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, as unverified and failing notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 19:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Dead monkey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable neologism. Ged UK (talk) 18:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No evidence of notability, simply a dictionary definition. Bart133 t c @ How's my driving? 19:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Does not establish notability, unencyclopedic, has only one (difficult to comprehend) source. CCG (T-C) 19:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Something not verifiable. Reference is to Japanese novel (misspelt author Kenzaburō Ōe). Dzied Bulbash (talk) 19:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom -- Darth Mike (Talk • Contribs) 20:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per unnotable and unverifiable neologism. Artene50 (talk) 04:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete this unverified neologism. Cliff smith talk 19:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - although it may have been used in a novel, this in my opinion is pretty much a WP:SNOW candidate.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 20:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as he now passes WP:ATHLETE (though this in no way validates the keep !votes made before he actually played, which were WP:CRYSTAL violations). пﮟოьεԻ 57 17:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Omar 'OJ' Koroma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Player fails notability at WP:ATHLETE having never played in a fully-professional league/competition Hubschrauber729 (talk) 18:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- he played at Hawks Banjul Football Club, a club in the highest league of the Country. They ended the Season 2007/08 at third. It's enough? --Atamari (talk) 19:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- First of all, is the Gambian league professional? Second, where is this information that he even played for them? Hubschrauber729 (talk) 20:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Those sources don't prove that he actually made an appearance. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 20:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ... they call him as "Gambian star" and you dont believe it the he made an appearance? --Atamari (talk) 20:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: they actually call him a [starlet, whatever that means. Ottre (talk) 21:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ... they call him as "Gambian star" and you dont believe it the he made an appearance? --Atamari (talk) 20:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- in the german Wikipedia is the relevant criterion reached when a player the highest national league play. Is the english
- Those sources don't prove that he actually made an appearance. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 20:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia tougher? --Atamari (talk) 20:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no evidence that he played at the highest level, that is what I am trying to say. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 20:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Now I see a difference between player and club. (german wikipedia rules:) Each national club at the highest league is relevant, but the players only in professional league. sorry. I myself write only articles (in german wikipedia) about players in the nationalteam are/were. --Atamari (talk) 21:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Playing at the highest level does not necessarily confer notability. The league has to be fully professional. BanRay 21:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No evidence that this player has ever played at a notable level of football. – PeeJay 20:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - This article has now been moved to Omar Alieu Koroma. – PeeJay 20:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - [13] Due to the BBC articles. According to Norwich City Football Club, he is on a professional team.-Inzweep (talk) 20:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment He's yet to make an appearance though and until then he's not notable. BanRay 21:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- True, but according to the original argument, the athlete wasn't notable because he hasn't played in a professional league. There's plenty of sources and inclinations that he will remain on the roster.-Inzweep (talk) 22:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Bill Clinton is yet to make an appearance failing WP:ATHLETE, but we're not deleting him! Koroma clearly meets WP:N with a BBC article like [14] which notes that he is has been loaned to Norwich City "to gain first team experience with Norwich". There is little point in completing an AfD on him next Friday, and then having to restore the article after Norwich City play on Saturday. Nfitz (talk) 21:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Are any of you familiar with this: Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability??? He might have been at a professional club, but there is no evidence that he actually played a game for them. And your comment about Bill Clinton makes no sense. Please elaborate on my talke page if you want. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 21:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - but not until after Saturday. As it currently stands I think he (just) fails the notability guidelines as both the BBC and SkySports sources pretty much just say he's been signed by Norwich and a couple of quotes which I don't think is enough to pass WP:N. That said if the result of this discussion is to delete there seems no point in doing so until Sunday to see if he does play in a profesional game and so then passes notability. If he does it's only going to create extra work for people if the article has already been deleted. Dpmuk (talk) 22:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There's a lot more references than the usual BBC Sport or SkySports pieces. How about this one in the in the Paris newspaper Le Monde. Doesn't "Norwich devrait accueillir le joueur gambien." say enough for both WP:N and WP:ATHLETE? As far as delete on Saturday - I'd be comfortable if he was given a fortnight (assuming consensus is that he doesn't meet WP:N, rather than just one game. Nfitz (talk) 22:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - currently fails WP:ATHLETE; recreate when/if he makes an appearance in a fully-pro league. GiantSnowman 10:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 10:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
this is ridiculous, so many players that have entries on this website have only played at semi-professional level, there are some entries of footballers that have only played for top teams youth teams. he'll get into the norwich first team at some point this season. stop being antagonistic and pedantic and do something useful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.237.252 (talk) 10:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, fails WP:ATHLETE. Recreate if he makes his an appearance for in a fully-professional league/competition. Being in a squad does not make a player notable. --Jimbo[online] 13:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The player is highly likely to make his first professional appearance for Norwich City this coming Saturday. Seems pointless to delete in the meantime creating extra work. NCFCQ (talk) 13:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment highly likely is not a definate, keeping him on such basis would be cystal balling. --Jimbo[online] 20:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Highly likely is not cystal balling' I've pointed this out to you before. Please do not mislead people. The standard is "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place.". Highly likely is almost certain. You can argue whether or not the event is actually "highly likely" but you can't claim that "highly likely" in a few days time is cystal balling. Nfitz (talk) 21:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Highly likely is not a definate without proof. --Jimbo[online] 12:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems my crystal ball worked on this occasion! [15] This discussion is surely irrelevant now. NCFCQ (talk) 16:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Highly likely is not a definate without proof. --Jimbo[online] 12:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Highly likely is not cystal balling' I've pointed this out to you before. Please do not mislead people. The standard is "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place.". Highly likely is almost certain. You can argue whether or not the event is actually "highly likely" but you can't claim that "highly likely" in a few days time is cystal balling. Nfitz (talk) 21:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment highly likely is not a definate, keeping him on such basis would be cystal balling. --Jimbo[online] 20:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteas this fails WP:ATHLETE at the current time - it takes very little effort to restore the page when and if he makes his debut (which would, of course, void this discussion). We seem to be having this discussion a lot recently. The notability criteria are quite clear I think - whether they are right or not should be a separate discussion. Rje (talk) 18:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Keep. I change my !vote as this now passes WP:ATHLETE. I do, however, stand by my original statement - youth players are not notable, and we have to draw a line somewhere. I am not really convinced that all players who have ever played a professional sport are inherently notable, but this is why we have policies to facilitate discussions that would otherwise be based solely on opinion. Rje (talk) 17:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree, it takes a lot of effort. First one has to find an Admin - I've been waiting now for weeks for one to respond to me on one issue. Then one has to convince them. Deleting an article we all know will exist shortly, is WP:BURO and your solution violates both the third and fifth pillar of Wikipedia. Nfitz (talk) 21:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am an admin and I would require no convincing when and if he makes his professional debut, saying that "he might" or "he will" is not enough, however, and is contrary to WP:CRYSTAL and WP:AADD. Your citation of WP:BURO and the five pillars, while accurate, is more than a little specious, it could be used to justify anarchy or merely denounce anything you just happen not to agree with. WP:ATHLETE sets a clear minimum criteria for articles about sportspeople, I see no reason to disregard it here without an RfC - I simply don't consider youth footballers to be notable, whatever their "potential", and a single professional game, as stated by WP:ATHLETE, should be the absolute minimum requirement for an article. Rje (talk) 22:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No one has said he might. Saying he will does not violate WP:CRYSTAL. Please don't mispresent the policy. Nfitz (talk) 23:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:CRYSTAL, I believe that one can say that the 2008 Olympics will take place or that High School Musical 3 will be released. Signing a player, and especially a young player, on loan does not necessarily guarantee that he will play. It is clear that I have a strict interpretation of "Avoid predicted sports team line-ups, which are inherently unverifiable and speculative." and you do not. I am disagreeing with you, but I think both of our interpretations are entirely legitimate. Like many Wikipedia policies - although perhaps not WP:ATHLETE - there is plenty of room for plurality of interpretation. Rje (talk) 23:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In this case though, we have a BBC article - [16] - that indicates that he is in Norwich to get first team experience. So we know he'll be playing, long before High School Musical 3 taints the silver screen - assuming that something dreadful doesn't happen like Koroma getting in a sex scandal with Vanessa Hudgens. Nfitz (talk) 06:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I do actually have some sympathy with your argument, which is why I didn't mention CRYSTAL in my initial statement. My problem is that WP:ATHLETE is clear and succinct - you are notable if you play - whereas entering the realm of the hypothetical is not. Even though there is legitimate reason to think that this player will play at some point - although I would hesitate to suggest that it is a certainty, because nothing in football is - I really don't like the grey area that it would introduce into these discussions. It is much easier to talk about whether a player has played or not than it is to come to a decision about the likelihood of him playing or not. CRYSTAL is a clumsy weapon to be sure, but it is much easier than having irresolvable, hypothetical arguments. Rje (talk) 16:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In this case though, we have a BBC article - [16] - that indicates that he is in Norwich to get first team experience. So we know he'll be playing, long before High School Musical 3 taints the silver screen - assuming that something dreadful doesn't happen like Koroma getting in a sex scandal with Vanessa Hudgens. Nfitz (talk) 06:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:CRYSTAL, I believe that one can say that the 2008 Olympics will take place or that High School Musical 3 will be released. Signing a player, and especially a young player, on loan does not necessarily guarantee that he will play. It is clear that I have a strict interpretation of "Avoid predicted sports team line-ups, which are inherently unverifiable and speculative." and you do not. I am disagreeing with you, but I think both of our interpretations are entirely legitimate. Like many Wikipedia policies - although perhaps not WP:ATHLETE - there is plenty of room for plurality of interpretation. Rje (talk) 23:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No one has said he might. Saying he will does not violate WP:CRYSTAL. Please don't mispresent the policy. Nfitz (talk) 23:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am an admin and I would require no convincing when and if he makes his professional debut, saying that "he might" or "he will" is not enough, however, and is contrary to WP:CRYSTAL and WP:AADD. Your citation of WP:BURO and the five pillars, while accurate, is more than a little specious, it could be used to justify anarchy or merely denounce anything you just happen not to agree with. WP:ATHLETE sets a clear minimum criteria for articles about sportspeople, I see no reason to disregard it here without an RfC - I simply don't consider youth footballers to be notable, whatever their "potential", and a single professional game, as stated by WP:ATHLETE, should be the absolute minimum requirement for an article. Rje (talk) 22:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree, it takes a lot of effort. First one has to find an Admin - I've been waiting now for weeks for one to respond to me on one issue. Then one has to convince them. Deleting an article we all know will exist shortly, is WP:BURO and your solution violates both the third and fifth pillar of Wikipedia. Nfitz (talk) 21:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete Whilst the article clearly fails notability for WP:ATHLETE I would be tempted to use some WP:COMMONSENSE and wait until Saturday. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Restore if/when he makes a debut for a professional side. – LATICS talk 04:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The BBC claim that he's going to Norwich to gain first team play isn't enough for me. Notability isn't temporary, and as of now he's not notable. If tomorrow he got injured and couldn't play football anymore, and had no chance of ever playing, he wouldn't be notable. That's different than the High School Musical 3 case, where, if tomorrow Disney announced that they weren't releasing the film, or something else similar happened, the film would still be notable. If he ever does make a professional debut, which, football being football is far from certain, the article is easy to recreate. Ask on the Footy project with "this person now has a professional debut, could you recreate the article?" and I'm sure you'll get a friendly admin to recreate it. Heck, if you're afraid, ask me and I'll ask an admin. We're not a crysal ball, and as of now, he's not notable. Vickser (talk) 08:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh look now he's notable - 1st game 9/8/8 v Coventry City - ****ing retards--86.145.2.101 (talk) 16:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment He has now indeed played in the Football League Championship, meaning he now passes WP:BIO.[17] Mattythewhite (talk) 16:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Passes WP:N and WP:BIO. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:31, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Withdrawn. Nominator stated withdrawal on my talk page. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 23:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Billion Dollar Gravy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Just created, but no notability is established by this album. A Disclog is the only sources available and does not establish any notability. Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:N. SRX 18:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought music albums were notable if a notable artist created them. London Elektricity is more than qualified, having won several music awards and being a pioneer of live drum and bass, but if you want to delete it, that's okay. If you don't believe me, look at this. DubCrazy (talk) 18:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)DubCrazy[reply]
- With my latest edits to the article, I have also included four reviews of Billion Dollar Gravy, from magazine and internet sources. DubCrazy (talk) 18:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)DubCrazy[reply]
- Keep: I've tidied the article up, and added an infobox and cats. And the included link to a review in The Guardian would definitely establish notability in my eyes. --Kaini (talk) 20:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Reviews from major magazines should merit an article.-Inzweep (talk) 20:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhilKnight (talk) 19:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Guitar Praise (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Prod declined. Non-notable upcoming video game, little information exists, and no independent sources provided that verify the game's notability. Two of the sources are actually for Rock Band, not Guitar Praise. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 17:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- delete. little notability. Dzied Bulbash (talk) 19:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No outside sources means its fairly unremarkable. -Inzweep (talk) 21:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*Neutral I do not endorse the product or the company that makes it. In fact, I am not satisfied with its Dance Praise line of products. But since those dance games have been successful (to a certain extent), I believe that this guitar game will be successful as well. This is because some parents/pastors/teachers are overconcerned about the media that children/tweens/teens are exposed to. Also, there are Satanic songs in Guitar Hero; yet another reason to expect this game to be successful. I don't mind the article being teared down for now. No screenshots have even been released yet. But, in a matter of time, there will be more outside sources and more notability. LetsGo67 (talk) 00:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MuZemike (talk) 20:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Simply "believing" that a game will be successful is not reason to keep an article, and goes completely against WP:CRYSTAL. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 02:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
* It's very hard to write about an unreleased game with no screenshots released, no beta testing outside of California, and no official website (it redirects to digitalpraise.com). I did not include any opinion in this; in fact, the only good current source is the Digital Praise press release, and maybe Digg, and some news press. But the news press pretty much re-word the press release. LetsGo67 (talk) 15:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
[reply]
- This game release is notable. While I contacted Tom Bean, he informed me that there are 100 000 customers. This means that Digital Praise is a multi-million dollar company. A product from such a company, where virtually all 100 000 customers show interest, is notable. The event is almost certain to take place, as the domain name has been purchased and the press release has been released. LetsGo67 (talk) 15:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There are facts as to why this game may be successful. Concerned adults, interested customers... I'm still completely neutral. I'm just saying that if the article is removed now, it will be re-hosted in a matter of time. LetsGo67 (talk) 15:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The Rock Band sources are there because Digital Praise claims that lyrics on screen are an "unique feature". If Rock Band has that feature, then it is not unique to Guitar Praise. LetsGo67 (talk) 15:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Sorry, my comments take up a lot of place, but bear with me)
- Delete This may indeed find itself to be notable someday - and in that case, the article can be re-created. But right now, with no reliable info, it's not quite there yet. Addionne (talk) 17:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete — If there exist no verifiable, third-party sources establishing any sort of notability, then I do not see how this is nothing but crystalballing. MuZemike (talk) 18:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete — Just go ahead and delete it. I'll rebuild it if/when I find more information. LetsGo67 (talk) 01:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Clear Delete - sources do not indicate that the game has attained "significant coverage" from sources reliable or otherwise - trivial mention in sales listing on one site and a press release - clearly fails WP:N. - Toon05 20:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhilKnight (talk) 19:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- List of songs covered by the Dropkick Murphys (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Simply a list of some of the songs which have been recorded (or just played in concert) by a band, the only common factor being that the band didn't write these particular songs themselves. Don't see any encyclopedic value in this whatsoever. List was originally broken out from the main article on the band, but I don't see that merging it back in would add anything encyclopedic to that article either. Most bands record at least some covers but it is not necessary to list them all on WP...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 17:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as unnecessary list. Bart133 t c @ How's my driving? 20:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No way to source any of the information, if this comes from their live shows, which would make it fairly unremarkable anyways. Bands tend to cover songs live, it's not important. If these are from albums, just mention it in the album article.-Inzweep (talk) 21:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete trivial trivia. JuJube (talk) 04:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhilKnight (talk) 19:31, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- List of Internet slang specific to thread-based communication (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
WP:NOT a dictionary. This was brought up exactly two years ago. Sceptre (talk) 17:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SpeedyDelete as a recreation. Multiple AFDs on similar lists previously, here, here, and finally here. The list was deleted at the last one. Given that a very similar list was AFD deleted, I would consider this a recreation, even if the "specific to" part makes it some sort of subset. A subset of deleted material is still deleted material. I'm too involved to act myself given my work over the last year or so to maintain the many soft redirects to Wiktionary that developed out of the AFD, but I do beleive that this qualifies as a recreation, and thus is CSD bait. - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Strike the speedy part. This list is not a recreation, as it long predates the previous AFDs on the broader list. I still think it should be deleted for all the reasons that the broader list was deleted. Just a bunch of dictionary definitions. - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I just used this page today to figure out some obscure shorthand that was used on a page here on WP. Since all we do here is thread-based communication, I can't think of a more useful list to have around to make sure that shorthand by experienced users doesn't make new people fell as if they've been bitten through the use of superfluous jargon. It may need to be sourced, but should qualify under WP:IAR because it is necessary for building the encyclopedia. Jim Miller See me | Touch me | Review me 20:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, we need some kind of page on the topic, to redirect all the terms; I don't think soft redirects to Wiktionary were a good idea in the first place. This isn't a glossary any more than List of baseball jargon and its 27(!) subarticles, or Tennis terminology is. We allow such articles because they are not simple glossaries, and nor is this. Needs referencing, but AFD isn't cleanup. Neıl ☄ 20:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Wikipedia is not a dictionary, "I used this page today" is not a viable argument for keep. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 20:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Try finding any source that GEBAPB is commonly used, and means "Get Eaten By A Polar Bear" and I will change to "Keep".-Inzweep (talk) 21:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete although I made an edit just now in case it's kept, I'm of the opinion that this really needs to go. JuJube (talk) 04:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or at best Transwiki to Wiktionary, though I suspect Wiktionary already has coverage of the terms in this article. We're not a dictionary. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 07:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral, leaning towards delete, as much as I wouldn't like to have to say so. True, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and that's a very important point. The list is also not cited well, and I'm sure some of these terms are used outside thread-based communication. Also, with the List of computing and IT abbreviations list, in comparison, the terms in that list have their own articles, whereas most of them here don't. This just seems like a mixture of leet and 4chan-style slang (which do overlap considerably) with no clear boundaries for inclusion.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 20:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and I can't really see anything besides LOL ever expanding beyond a dicdef. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 21:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ibrahima Barry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
It is suspected that this article is a biographical entry which does not show appropriate notability. This article is about a person who is the co-creator of a written script, but who does not have any publicly available sources across the net - a google search only shows 3 entries, and 2 of those are duplicates. It is also suspected that the user who created the page is the subject of the article. Another user, involved with African Wikiprojects on Cote d'Ivoire (User:T L Miles has also agreed with this deletion on his talk page.) This person is not notable and this article requires removal. Was declined for speedy under {{db-bio}}. Recommended to place here instead. Thor Malmjursson (talk) 17:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If the claims in this article are true, then he would certainly appear to be notable. Needs a lot of referencing added before it stops looking like a vanity bio though. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- delete - not independent confirmations of recognition. Dzied Bulbash (talk) 19:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as nominator of this AFD. Thor Malmjursson (talk) 01:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete However, the Historical Dictionary of Guinea (do a google book search) does thow up a Ibrahima Sori, who went by Ibrahima Barry. These are obviously not the same person, as Sori died in 1784, but perhaps we can have a redirect. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 03:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhilKnight (talk) 17:44, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Malone Avenue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non notable street in the Belfast suburbs with no claims to fame based on population, size, history etc. Nothing on google of note [18] Valenciano (talk) 17:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Malone Road, Yes. Malone Avenue, No. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Non-notable road. -FrankTobia (talk) 00:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - [19] seems intresting, as well as a few others from [20]. No !Vote till I get a chance to wade through a few of them. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 07:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The area is highly notable (probably the most attractive part of Belfast). This individual road isn't. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If enough 'Notable" structures are located on this road, as with other AFD's, that would make the road a notable place. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 01:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no significant findings. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 10:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- a single street would need some major event to make it notable (or notorious). An alternative may be to merege the content with the locality where it is, but I doubt there is sufficient content for that to be a worthwhile exercise. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This is a very pretty street and lovely to bike down as long as you watch out for the occasional 4WD, but not notable. --Helenalex (talk) 01:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhilKnight (talk) 19:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Jon Janes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable person. Notability not established in article with third party sources. Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 16:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not only Delete but I'd seriously consider oversighting this. It's making potentially grossly defamatory comments without so much as a whiff of a reliable source. – iridescent 19:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. BLP states that we shouldn't use these sorts of sources - this sort of article with its sourcing is completely unsuitable for Wikipedia. Many people read tabloid newspapers, but they're definitely not suitable for Wikipedia, especially BLP articles.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 20:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). AmaltheaTalk 16:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Peter Hughes (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Article does not seem to meet notability guidelines at WP:BIO; the article does not contain reliable third-party sources that establish it's notability. CCG (T-C) 16:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Unless other users feel this should be deleted, I think perhaps this discussion could be closed. After a few new refs were added, and in light of some of the things pointed out by amalthea, I think maybe I was in error nominating this for deletion. I'm not sure if I can simply close the discussion or not right now as keep, so if possible, I'd like to withdraw my request to delete. Thanks, CCG (T-C) 15:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 19:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:MUSIC: members of two notable bands are generally notable enough for their own article.
Peter Hughes has been or is a member of The Mountain Goats, Nothing Painted Blue and Diskothi-Q, and the first two seem to be clearly notable at first glance.
I can't find any sources to establish notability directly and think it's a close call given the questionable notability of Diskothi-Q and his rather short affiliation with Nothing Painted Blue (as I said, at first glance at least), but I think keeping the article is more useful than a redirect to The Mountain Goats. --AmaltheaTalk 23:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhilKnight (talk) 19:33, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
List of delicacies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) Inclusion criteria for this list is completely arbitrary and subjective. It has no sources, and I can't think of any reliable way of sourcing such a list. --Itub (talk) 16:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In fact, I agree! Strong Delete! The Ogre (talk) 16:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete While delicious, I think I have to agree with the nom in regards to sourcing. It's awfully hard to establish everything on such a list as a delicacy. The idea of a delicacy itself is subjective; I live in the US, and while I'd perhaps consider morels a delicacy, I don't know if I'd use that word for crab or lobster - that's just expensive seafood. No way all sources are ever going to agree about something being a 'delicacy'. CCG (T-C) 17:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete- While I disagree that this couldn't be sourced, the scope of the list is just so broad, that even WITH sourcing, it would still be an unmanageable mess. Possibly dividing things up into separate by world/country region would be more manageable and sourceable. And possibly even encyclopedic. As it stands however, this is just a list with potentially no end, and therefore in need of deleting. Umbralcorax (talk) 17:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- delete very general notion "delicacy" is. Also difficult to understanding why need list. Categories by national cuisines work fine. Dzied Bulbash (talk) 19:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Inclusion of what a "delicacy" would be is indiscriminate. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 19:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete- since there's no unabiguous, objective definition of the word "delicacy" this list will be forever plagued with point of view and original research. It's also skating close to being an indiscriminate collection of information. Reyk YO! 22:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I agree that the article lacks sources and therefore appears arbitrary and subjective, but this problem is common to many articles and, rather than being a reason for deletion, is a reason for doing the work of a wikipedia editor and properly sourcing the article. Reliable sources for this subject are easy to find, and any good editor could make this an interesting and informative article. The suggestion that the list would be endless presumes a lack of sourcing. Provided proper sources were used, the article would be quite managable. Here is a small sample of the many reliable sources that could be used for the article:
- In bad taste? : the adventures and science behind food delicacies. ; Marcone, Massimo Francesco, 1964- ; c2007. ; Key Porter Books
- Eastern Mediterranean cooking; exotic delicacies from Greece, Turkey, Israel, Lebanon and Iran. Recipe contributions by Roger Debasque. ; Debasque, Roger. ; [c1973] ; Galahad Books
- Don't read this before dinner time - a stomach-churning list of unusual delicaci ... ; World Entertainment News Network ; April 7, 2008
- Delicacies arriving now, from every coast in the world. ; Florence Fabricant ; The New York Times ; May 24, 2000
- In summary, I agree that the article is poorly sourced, but reliable sources can certainly be found, and doing so would eliminate the perception of arbitrariness and the concerns regarding subjectivity. I believe the topic is interesting and appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia and therefore recommend that it be kept.Mmyotis (^^o^^) 17:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhilKnight (talk) 17:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Beyonce's Third Studio Album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Gazing into the musical crystal ball, this article cites only blogs as sources. The article is premature, since there is essentially no confirmed information: the article fails verifiability. —C.Fred (talk) 16:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:HAMMER. As it is, this article contains little more than, "There will be another album by Beyonce", which is hardly notable. Premature. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:HAMMER. No reliable sources, cover art, track list, etc. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 21:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:HAMMER. Haven't we been here before???? Could it be speedied for recreation of deleted material? Oh, question: how do you do you search that an article has been deleted before? Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 03:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Criterion G4 only applies if an article has been deleted after AfD (VfD, MfD, etc.) discussion. I.e., if this AfD ends with a delete consensus and the article is recreated, it can then be speedy deleted. Now, if you can find an AfD for Next Beyonce album or something similar - that clearly relates to the same album - then G4 is in order. —C.Fred (talk) 16:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I just had this feeling I'd partaken in an AfD for this album before, but I can't find any record of it. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 00:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The article fails WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:CBALL, and having reliable sources report this. --Kanonkas : Talk 13:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Fails WP:MUSIC/WP:HAMMER. Lots of blog sources, but nothing reliable ("ohhellyes.blogspot" as a source? Ohhellno.). - Mdsummermsw (talk) 15:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhilKnight (talk) 17:37, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hunslet Hall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Insufficient notability
The article was AfD'ed in September 2007 (closed by editor without consensus) and some expansion did take place. However none of this is yet sufficient to indicate the subject's notability: it's just another local government office. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —Andy Dingley (talk) 16:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per lack of WP:N Artene50 (talk) 04:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete but might possibly add some content to the article on Leeds MBC. This is the sort of thing that we do with articles on Primary SChools. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Currents (Magazine) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
PROD tag removed by author so bringing here. Article's subject fails our notability and verifiability policies and/or guidelines. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I've previously spent time trying to find references to establish notability for this article and didn't find anything usable, so I added unref/notability tags to the article so that the article creator or someone else could do so. The only thing that resulted from that was occasionally someone stops by to remove the maintenance tags. This has lead me to believe there's no notability to be established for this subject. Rnb (talk) 15:54, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 at author's request and in line with the emerging consensus below - Peripitus (Talk) 21:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Warlord (demo) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Demo albums typically fail the criteria at WP:MUSIC#Albums. I'm not convinced that this one is an exception. PROD was contested per comments on the talk page. B. Wolterding (talk) 15:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —B. Wolterding (talk) 15:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:MUSIC#Albums. Non notable Demo -- Darth Mike (Talk • Contribs) 20:58, 4 August 2008 b(UTC)
DeleteSpeedy Delete, per creator's comment (below), this can actually be SD-G7 as {{db-author}} and per guideline for notability, which even the article's creator acknowledges is not met. JGHowes talk - 16:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Delete - As creator of this article I would like to say that my editing methods have changed drastically after a year of editing (I didn't know of WP:MUSIC) but I never had the courage to go back and delete it myself but now this is my chance so I vote for delete. Added {{db-author}} to the page (Am I supposed to replace the deletion template even when it says not to? or is this an exception? sorry if I wasn't supposed to.). −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪ kaiden 04:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Now that I have read WP:Music more closly, I agree it should be deleted. -Eborgork —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eborgork (talk • contribs) 18:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhilKnight (talk) 17:37, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Congoro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This article on a film offers no secondary sources, and notability tag was removed by single purpose contributor without any being added. I find no evidence that this meets Wikipedia:Notability (films). A google search on the combination of the full title is not useful in locating reliable sources to confirm notability, and searching for the abbreviated name (Congoro) in conjunction with the writer/star comes up solely with YouTube, here. Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 15:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've tried searching Google News archives, and also a library database of newspaper and magazine articles, but can find no sources to help to establish notability. Delete unless sources are forthcoming by the end of this deletion discussion. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 16:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Wikipedia:NFF and Wikipedia:N. Done the search myself... and I love to dig... There's just nothing out there past their own website and a trailer on youtube. Nothing. No trade magazines. No production rumors. No casting calls. Nothing on imdb. Zip. Zero. Nada. I'll keep looking during the course of the AfD, but there's not even a 3rd party hint about this one. Schmidt (talk) 18:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per evidence supplied by nom. No reliable sources, and no notability. PC78 (talk) 20:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, WP:RS, WP:V and WP:NFF-- Darth Mike (Talk • Contribs) 21:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and Darth Mike. Cliff smith talk 15:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Nomination is thorough and complete, and I have nothing more to add beyond the rationale it contains. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 21:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 15:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Gays.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
non notable website Weisr123 (talk) 15:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete comes across as advertising and has no notoriety. Lympathy Talk 15:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – I've added one source, an article about it in the Boston Herald. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 16:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - links are not the problem with this article. It's the substance of the subject and relevance to an Encyclopedia. The site is not notable,
for anything significanthaving no references that add to the article's substance other than its financial value and it is written as purely subjective and therefor has no reason to remain here in it's current state. Lympathy Talk 17:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Not quite sure what you mean by "the site is not notable for anything significant"... The way we decide, in a neutral way, if a subject is sufficiently notable for inclusion in the encyclopedia is "a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 17:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair criticism and poor choice of sentence from myself. Reworded accordingly. Lympathy Talk 16:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not quite sure what you mean by "the site is not notable for anything significant"... The way we decide, in a neutral way, if a subject is sufficiently notable for inclusion in the encyclopedia is "a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 17:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete- What an unnecessary article! Who would even search this up??--EZ1234 (talk) 07:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Article appears to meet the notability guidelnes, WP:WEB and WP:N through enough significant coverage in reliable sources. Davewild (talk) 18:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Chopaal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
non notable website Weisr123 (talk) 15:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. There are a few blog references, but no reliable sources. Axl (talk) 16:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - this site is commercial, thus it is notable. Also the article is undergoing a major revamping, so we'd better wait 3 months. If later the article is still a stub and contains no appropriate 3rd sources, then we can delete it. --RekishiEJ (talk) 16:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC) fixed 16:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC) fixed again 16:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "this site is commercial, thus it is notable." That's not correct. See Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Axl (talk) 17:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "the article is undergoing a major revamping, so we'd better wait 3 months." The article was created on 25th July by Asimfayaz. He included the tag "underconstruction". Since then, one user adjusted the stub tag, and another user added the AFD tag. There is no sign of "a major revamping". See Wikipedia:Deletion of pages under construction. Of note, "Generally, when an article is labeled "under construction," it shall be considered to be under construction as long as not more than one week (seven days) passes without a significant addition being made to the page." Axl (talk) 17:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: No reliable sources to show notability per WP:N, WP:WEB or WP:ORG. --JD554 (talk) 09:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —JD554 (talk) 09:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —JD554 (talk) 09:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, WP:CSD#G4, WP:CSD#G11. Creator has a WP:COI, this was deleted and endorsed in April and he has no contributions other than documenting this, his website. Note that the site is blacklisted due to spamming. Guy (Help!) 16:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikijob (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non notable website Weisr123 (talk) 15:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteKeep Nice enough site, but it's not encyclopedic content. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Use of wiki techniques to run a jobs board. Interesting as an innovation in technology application. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep Article cites independent, reliable sources. Those source authors thought this was notable enough to be worth some coverage. I do too. More sources would be nice, though. DickClarkMises (talk) 18:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What's notable about this site? Presumably that it uses a wiki to catch information from the community of users. That might just about be notable, as a new use of a particular technology in a notably new way. Except that it isn't a wiki! It appears to be a plain old threaded blog. User-created content, but not a wiki, hence nothing new.
- The sources don't change this. It's perfectly WP:V, just not very WP:N. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Andy, I'm of the opinion that non-trivial third-party coverage in reliable sources is an indicator of notability. DickClarkMises (talk) 19:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It certainly isn't, unless that coverage chooses to indicate notability. V, but not N, unless the RS indicates N. AFAICS, these refs don't do this. They're merely reporting the existence of yet another jobs board, and jobs boards alone aren't notable unless there's something special about them. There's a vague suggestion that the idea of capturing community-based content creation is novel. Now AFAICS, this site is clearly not doing this in a way that lives up to the promise. Nor is it using "wiki" techniques. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry Andy but you're entirely wrong. WikiJob quite clearly isn't a jobs board. The site does not advertise jobs at all - you've missed the point here. The site allows students to discuss what it's like to work at large graduate employers and give each other tips about interviews. Every page of the site is a wiki and I'm actually quite surprised you've missed this - each page is open to edits, apart from the messageboard, which is just a single part of the site. Apart from the messageboard, anyone can edit anything - this site is completely wiki, although the design has been altered from the original mediawiki style. The site is novel because there is no where else on line that student job seekers can discuss the information available on WikiJob. Wikipedia allows similar websites such as "rollonfriday" and "thestudentroom" and these sites are certainly not notable, or even wiki based. Please re-assess WikiJob. 86.0.221.59 (talk) 21:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, looked again, saw the wiki. Pages I'd initially looked at (the couple that happen to be my own clients) just didn't have any content loaded yet. Sorry! Andy Dingley (talk) 22:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for reassessing Andy. I appreciate it :) 86.0.221.59 (talk) 23:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, looked again, saw the wiki. Pages I'd initially looked at (the couple that happen to be my own clients) just didn't have any content loaded yet. Sorry! Andy Dingley (talk) 22:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry Andy but you're entirely wrong. WikiJob quite clearly isn't a jobs board. The site does not advertise jobs at all - you've missed the point here. The site allows students to discuss what it's like to work at large graduate employers and give each other tips about interviews. Every page of the site is a wiki and I'm actually quite surprised you've missed this - each page is open to edits, apart from the messageboard, which is just a single part of the site. Apart from the messageboard, anyone can edit anything - this site is completely wiki, although the design has been altered from the original mediawiki style. The site is novel because there is no where else on line that student job seekers can discuss the information available on WikiJob. Wikipedia allows similar websites such as "rollonfriday" and "thestudentroom" and these sites are certainly not notable, or even wiki based. Please re-assess WikiJob. 86.0.221.59 (talk) 21:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It certainly isn't, unless that coverage chooses to indicate notability. V, but not N, unless the RS indicates N. AFAICS, these refs don't do this. They're merely reporting the existence of yet another jobs board, and jobs boards alone aren't notable unless there's something special about them. There's a vague suggestion that the idea of capturing community-based content creation is novel. Now AFAICS, this site is clearly not doing this in a way that lives up to the promise. Nor is it using "wiki" techniques. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Andy, I'm of the opinion that non-trivial third-party coverage in reliable sources is an indicator of notability. DickClarkMises (talk) 19:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- weak keep seems to have sufficient independent reliable sources, as per notability policy. It seems to me that it's the fact it has been covered by independent, reliable sources that indicates notability, rather than how revolutionary it is. The website does seem to be fairly distinctive, in any case. Silverfish (talk) 22:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This article was Deleted back in April, then brought to Deletion Review where the deletion was upheld. [21] Article creator appeared to have conflict of interest and was spamming the link back then. Edward321 (talk) 04:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- DRV primarily reviews process, not the meat of notability, etc. Besides, consensus can change. DickClarkMises (talk) 04:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. John254 00:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- MyLOL (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
non notable website Weisr123 (talk) 15:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. Reasonable amount coverage of the site in the last few days, in fact (Press Association, BBC News, Die Presse in Austria), admittedly all in reference to their child protection policies. Gr1st (talk) 15:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable website. Toddst1 (talk) 17:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Sourcing demonstrates verifiability, and links provided by Gr1st shows notability. Article is in good shape. -FrankTobia (talk) 00:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - It is sourced, seems to have a large membership and is currently in the news. Poltair (talk) 11:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- CosmosGal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
non notable website. Weisr123 (talk) 15:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This article is based on a WP:ONEVENT and fails WP:N Artene50 (talk) 04:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhilKnight (talk) 17:36, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Tillow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Neoglism. No evidence given of notability. Was Prodded here but was contested. Rockfang (talk) 13:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - As the original PROD-er, I agree with the above. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - non-notable neologism, probably something made up one day. JohnCD (talk) 15:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. If it is notable (unlikely), it's dictionary content at most. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was AfD closed as accidental duplicate of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keith deligero. Will notify all contributors here who have not also contributed there. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC) [reply]
- Keith deligero (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Delete for non-notability. Only reference to his existence is the website. No results found on IMDB Arbiteroftruth (talk) 13:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Try different spellings of his names in searches. 203.194.16.90 (talk) 13:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Why was a second AfD for this article started within half an hour of the first one...........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I think nominator is trying to get rid of this one see User_talk:Sorfane#Keith_deligero_AfD, and this diff where he put the discussion page up for deletion[22] looks like problem from using TW and not spotting first one - could an admin do the necessary? -Hunting dog (talk) 14:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment- Another user started another AfD, and there was simply an edit conflict. I tried to speedy this... Arbiteroftruth (talk) 15:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhilKnight (talk) 19:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keith deligero (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Unremarkable, non-notable person. - Sorfane 13:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable. --Wikieditor06 (talk) 13:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for non-notability. No hits on IMDB, and no reference to his existence (other than his website) exists. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 13:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Try different spellings of his names in searches. 203.194.16.90 (talk) 13:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Which spellings should we try? --Slashme (talk) 14:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as the article stands and with current information available the person fails our notability and verifiability criteria. The assertion that we should search on different spellings of the person's name is unclaer (what spellings?). The article is about "Keith Deligero" and he fails both WP:N and WP:V. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, as above. Ian¹³/t 15:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment- I tried to google (even Cuil) this person, and only his Wikipedia page, his personal website, and his blog appears. Other hits are of unrelated persons. This is pretty NN.
- Delete the anonymous comment of 'try different spellings' without even suggesting any smacks of disingenuity to me. A regular person, article fails Geogre's Law. Get rid of it. JuJube (talk) 04:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. MySpace and YouTube videos do not constitute notability. Axl (talk) 16:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This page was recently moved to Keith Deligero, does this interfere with the AfD? - Sorfane 20:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think so as long as it was moved with the AfD tag attached we should be fine (assuming it is the same article and not one with brand new content. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G4, as changes to the article compared with the previous version do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted. The page has been WP:SALTed to prevent recreation. пﮟოьεԻ 57 15:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sassco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable company, whose article is currently just a promotion. - Sorfane 12:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep Notable non-profit football organisation. Article need cleanup and references added. 203.194.16.90 (talk) 13:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article is not self promotion. This is a WIKIPEDIA entry for the well established, professionally orientated and award winning 6-a-side League played at Downhill in Sunderland. The notable aspects are that the League is FA Charter Standard, strict on rules and has been web enabled since it's establishment in 1999. Since then it's had hundreds of teams taking part region wide.
As a non-profit organisation, it does not need promotion.
It was initially deleted by an American who are completely unaware of soccer's impact everywhere apart from the USA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davindersangha (talk • contribs) 13:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is if "a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" After a Google search, I can find no evidence of that. - Sorfane 13:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Load of rubbish. Typing Sassco football in Google UK will see a lot of responses. Also, Whitehills FC, Washington Colliery FC and a number of other articles are still there.
Also the parent league, WCFL Wearside Combination Football League is on Wiki and Sassco is a part of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davindersangha (talk • contribs) 13:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah Googlehits. Try adding "Sunderland" or football related terms to the searches. There are also far more non-internet primary sources available to those in the UK. 203.194.16.90 (talk) 13:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As I say, sources need to be independent of the subject. If your parent league is on Wikipedia, why don't you merge Sassco into that? - Sorfane 13:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, being new to editing on WIKI. How the hell do I get them to stop deleting the article. It's significant enough and I've seen dozens of pages with no references. Most of our references come in the local printed press and not on the internet. Also, the vast amount of teams don't have websites which means they wouldn't be able to show linkage to us.
- Just cite some of the printed press sources. 203.194.16.90 (talk) 13:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Adding it to the parent page would not be fair. Firstly Sassco has much more history and vast archives as well as photos plus the other teams would think the WCFL wiki page is Sassco only. You have to understand that Sassco as an organisation has an 11-a-side team, an U18 team, A 6-a-side League and another 6-a-side League. So it's not just a single team.
And, as mentioned, several other teams are on wiki who are far smaller than us. I will try and cite some of the sources but don't know how to go about it. Any examples?
- Take a look at this: How to cite a source - Sorfane 14:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, it's an amateur sports league. Without reliable independent sources, it fails the notability guidelines of WP:ORG. NawlinWiki (talk) 13:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:CORP. Lacks reliable sources per wikipedia's guidelines. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 13:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, rubbish Nawlin.
Amateur League with no independent sources. It's listed on the Durham FA register as a Charter Standard League and also has an affiliation certificate on the Sassco website. http://www.sassco.co.uk/general_graphics/dfa_2005-2006.gif None of these are on the web. Just because something doesn't show on the web, doesn't mean it's not reliable.
Not notable. Again, being an American, you have no concept of what is notable and not when it comes to local football. The Sassco organisation is massively notable and outside of SAFC, probably has the most people looking at the website within the area. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davindersangha (talk • contribs) 14:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another example, why is Bedlington Terriers F.C. on. They are similar to ourselves in terms of structure. A team within a League. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davindersangha (talk • contribs) 14:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment
- Please sign your comments by typing ~~~~ at the end
- Please read WP:RS to see what is considered to be a reliable source for Wikipedia purposes
- Please read WP:WAX - the fact that another article may or may not be more or less notable is irrelevant to this discussion. The issue being discussed here is whether or not your article is notable, not somebody else's.
- Please do not verbally attack other editors or make claims as to what they may or may not know due to their nationality
- Hope this helps -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Will do.
- RS - Is the local press not a reliable source. Is the governing body of regional football not a reliable source. Also, the local authority has the organisation as one they recommend.
- WAX - Well, the examples I have put out are similar teams, so where I understand that it's us against them, it puts the argument that my page being notable to rest.
- It's irritating when someone just deletes something without a detailed explanation. The person deleting it has not got a clue how large the organisation is and who it serves. If I started a petition, then it'd be clear - but I haven't got time for it. Davindersangha (talk) 14:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The local press is a reliable source, however you have yet to cite any specific coverage the league has received in the local press -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So why does the other dude keep deleting it. I've lost all my changes so can't add to the damn thing. I've added some local sources and it's just been deleted again! --Davindersangha (talk) 14:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ask one of these guys for a copy of the latest version and put it on a subpage of your user page (e.g. at User:Davindersangha/Sassco). Then work on it for a while, add the sources using Wikipedia:Citation templates and try re-creating it. --Slashme (talk) 14:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhilKnight (talk) 17:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Education funding (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
- Delete Blatantly WP:POV WP:OR article by UK government agency Mayalld (talk) 12:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Spam (not in the commercial term of the word; but we are not here to advertise organisations either). --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a notice-board. JohnCD (talk) 15:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unsourced, unreferenced, violates WP:NPOV, unencyclopedic advertising. Wiw8 (talk) 17:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, looks like a copyright violation to me, and certainly doesn't look like an encyclopedia article, fails WP:NOT, provides no context.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 20:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhilKnight (talk) 19:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Tiger count (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
WP:SOAP, WP:NOT#STATS and WP:NOTFORUM (if users follow the "This page will attempt to create a census based upon actual observation by the public" prompt) StaticGull Talk 12:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This information is not available from any other resource. Wikipedia has an opportunity here to help save the tiger from extinction by encouraging collaboration from around the globe. I would hate to see the best chance the tigers have be lost. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.73.104.130 (talk) 13:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If Wikipedia is the best hope the tigers have, I'm sorry for the tigers. Have you considered discussing it with the World Wide Fund for Nature? They might be able to host a page. How about your local green party or maybe Greenpeace? Anyway, StaticGull was right, Wikipedia is not the right home for this page. Delete.--Slashme (talk) 14:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete — Wikipedia is not an advertising or marketing vehicle, nor is it your web host. With that said, I hope the best for the tigers. MuZemike (talk) 20:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. This appears to be a synthesis or compilation of original research. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhilKnight (talk) 17:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 12th Cork Scout Troop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This is a page about a scout troop, and doesn't make any assertion of notability. Unless there is a specific reason why this particular troop is notable, it should be deleted. Slashme (talk) 12:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Individual scout troops are inherently non-notable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete yes generally scout troops are not notable. I disagree with the term "inherently non-notable" because that may imply that scout troops could never be notable--which is not true becuase, well, the Madison Scouts for example--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Nearly all scout troops are inherently non-notable, and this one is no exception. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 14:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This troop is certainly not notable, being neither very old, very large or well known for other reasons, and there is nothing to merge anywhere else. I have done some wikification, but it can never be notable. It should be transwikied to Scoutwiki. --Bduke (talk) 06:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhilKnight (talk) 17:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Employability Skills (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
- Delete Howto guide Mayalld (talk) 12:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as same. Ironholds 12:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete spam, howto, see WP:NOT. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Wikipedia is not a guide WP:NOTGUIDE. This information is better served on a unique website dedicated to searching for employment. Lympathy Talk 15:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge Anything encyclopedic ( if there is ) should be put into employment. Drunken Pirate (talk) 20:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Employment. A lot of the information contained in this article seems suitable for Employment or a similar article. Sebwite (talk) 16:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Neutralitytalk 03:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was it was just a page used by a vandal to stack up some edits. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 11:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Conflict of Intrest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Article on this topic exists at conflict of interest. Suggest merging of information, if not already present in existing article, then deletion. —CycloneNimrodTalk? 11:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a good article. Merge.--Dmol (talk) 11:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy redirect/delete - there is no content here to Merge if you look at author's contribs - he's just copied text over from the correctly spelled title to get enough edits to be autoconfirmed and embark on page move vandalism spree - Hunting dog (talk) 11:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, should have looked a bit more carefully there. Suggest delete and speedy redirect. —CycloneNimrodTalk? 11:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Due to the lack of sources there's nothing to merge, and the title could be a BLP issue. Wizardman 05:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Mike Levy incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This was a non-notable stage-managed "event" in Pro Wrestling. Slashme (talk) 11:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Independent Wrestling Association Mid-South: Whilst this is not necessarily stage-managed (police are investigating the incident,) the article is poor and there's no evidence that it will be improved upon by a 1-edit user. Merging to the promotion's article appears to be the best way forward. Alternatively (or in addition,) expand on the comments about the incident at Queen of the Deathmatch 2008. Poker Flunky (talk) 23:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merging would work for me. --Slashme (talk) 05:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge or Redirect per all of the above. not notable enough for a standalone article. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 St. Lucie County Public Schools, merge left to editorial discretion. lifebaka++ 15:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Allapattah Flats K-8 School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable school. Fails WP:ORG. No references or third-party sources cited CultureDrone (talk) 11:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Port St. Lucie, Florida, the school's locality for lack of a school district article. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/redirect to St. Lucie County Public Schools per usual practice. There was no need to come here. TerriersFan (talk) 15:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, there was, for two reasons - 1. the 'redirect' policy was, I believe, part of the proposed WP:SCHOOL guideline, which has been rejected, and 2. an admin rejected my redirect on another non-notable school and requested it be taken to AfD... CultureDrone (talk) 16:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/redirect to Port St. Lucie, Florida. This is barely even a stub, so there won't be much to merge. Change to link to school district, when created. Alansohn (talk) 16:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I have created a page on the district so I suggest that the target should be to St. Lucie County Public Schools. TerriersFan (talk) 18:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 vandalism. ... discospinster talk 01:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Angle boy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Supposedly chart topping Danish rapper with 20 albums released over 28 years. No references are given at all and I can't find any sources mentioning him or the other people that are included in the article - even given the language difference this looks like a hoax to me, but referring here to check Hunting dog (talk) 11:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No relevant Google hits outside Wikipedia for his most successful albums suggests this is a hoax, albeit a creative one. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete — There is no "artist" and any discography by Angle boy or this "Anders Pederson" from Copenhagen in any search. CZmarlin (talk) 15:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 16:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Nothing to be found in Google News archives, or anywhere. Delete. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 16:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As the creator of this article I admit that Angle Boy is fictional. I apologise for any offence caused and understand that it is best if the article is deleted. However, I suggest that it might be possible to assert the fictional nature of Angle Boy in the article, as I believe that it has some entertainment value. Curse of the black lagoon (talk) 23:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- LifeJive Radio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This is an article about a podcast, but no assertion has been made that the service is notable, and no disinterested sources have been cited. Slashme (talk) 10:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- … and no significant coverage in reliable source can be found [23][24]. Delete per WP:NOTE. AmaltheaTalk 23:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 point in discussing this further.Tikiwont (talk) 10:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Activities to improve search engine positioning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Wikipedia is not a how-to guide for SEOs. This got lots of jargon. Speedy delete. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 10:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - agreed its a how-to and not appropriate, subject is already covered in encyclopaedic manner at Search engine optimization - not quite sure what grounds you're trying to speedy it under though - or why its nominated for both -Hunting dog (talk) 10:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete You do know that you don't need to open an AfD if you provide a valid CSD reason? But as WP:NOT#GUIDE is not on the CSD list, I would have advised to WP:PROD it instead. So#Why review me! 10:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as WP:OR and WP:V Artene50 (talk) 10:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, not an encyclopedia article. --Stormie (talk) 10:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per WP:NOTHOWTO. Black-Velvet 10:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per WP:NOTHOWTO, WP:OR, and WP:V. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 14:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, ditto and etcetera, suggest snowball delete at this stage. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete this unverified, unreferenced how-to guide. Cliff smith talk 19:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Shuttlewood#Education, content has already been merged there. (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 17:47, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Brockley Primary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable school. Fails WP:ORG. No references or third-party sources cited CultureDrone (talk) 09:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I lean strongly towards delete on the subject and view it as an unnotable school according to WP:SCHOOL guidelines for junior/primary schools. However, the WP:SCHOOL guidelines have not been adopted into Wikipedia's rules at present. So, I'm at a loss at how Wikipedians would approach the topic. Artene50 (talk) 09:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirecting to locality (Shuttlewood in this case) is the regular approach for dealing with non-notable schools at AfD. • Gene93k (talk) 10:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's what I thought, but I did that for another school which asserted no notability, and an admin reverted it saying it should be brought to AfD - so that's what I'm doing with schools until someone tells me different. At the risk of going off topic, was the redirect to the local article just part of the failed WP:SCHOOL guideline, or is it standing policy somewhere else ? CultureDrone (talk) 10:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirecting was part of WP:SCHOOL but it has been a long-established practice. Redirecting primary schools is usually not controversial. High schools however are contentious. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's what I thought, but I did that for another school which asserted no notability, and an admin reverted it saying it should be brought to AfD - so that's what I'm doing with schools until someone tells me different. At the risk of going off topic, was the redirect to the local article just part of the failed WP:SCHOOL guideline, or is it standing policy somewhere else ? CultureDrone (talk) 10:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirecting to locality (Shuttlewood in this case) is the regular approach for dealing with non-notable schools at AfD. • Gene93k (talk) 10:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 10:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 10:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment following the failure of WP:SCHOOL to reach consensus, I'm using WP:ORG as a guideline for notability - but that's just a personal opinion. CultureDrone (talk) 10:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/redirect to Shuttlewood#Education to where I have already merge the content. This could have been done without coming here. TerriersFan (talk) 15:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/Redirect as suggest by User:TerriersFan. Alansohn (talk) 19:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge but delete and salt the resultant redirect (which would otherwise encourage recreation). The consensus is that we do not have articles on primary schools, but they can have a sentence or paragraph in an article on the place where they are. Notability is difficult to establish for them. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/Redirect as suggested. I don't think deleting the redirect is a good idea - the redirect would help anyone searching WP for information on the school. If there are concerns about recreating the article then protect the redirect; there's no need to delete it. Waggers (talk) 09:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to obvious target, per WP:BEFORE. - Neier (talk) 13:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep. Synergy 07:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Bridgnorth Endowed School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable school. Fails WP:ORG. No references or third-party sources cited CultureDrone (talk) 09:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 10:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 10:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This stub really merits deletion if only the WP:SCHOOL guidelines were more clear. I think a youngster created this page. We don't want to bite newcomers but the subject currently fails notability but passes WP:V. Artene50 (talk) 10:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Comment WP:SCHOOL is a failed guideline proposal - repeated versions did not gain consensus support. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if WP:SCHOOL was in force, it has not stated deletion for a long time. Anyway, Bridgnorth Endowed is a secondary school, so this will be contentious at the very least. • Gene93k (talk) 11:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as a 500 year old high school. Plenty of sources are available that meet WP:N. TerriersFan (talk) 15:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as a Secondary school. Artene50 (talk) 19:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as valid secondary school stub. School is WP:V.--Sting Buzz Me... 22:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep. This is a poor stub, but the school is notable and requires an article. (1) Though not entitled "High School", it is in that category. (2) It is over 500 years old. Even a primary school of that age would be notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhilKnight (talk) 17:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fausto Rossi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
17-year old youth footballer for Juventus F.C. with no first team appearances at all, not even listed in the first team page at the official website[25]. Previous PRODded, contested by a IP user with no summary whatsoever. Fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:FOOTYN. Angelo (talk) 08:54, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Angelo (talk) 08:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. BanRay 11:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 11:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. --Jimbo[online] 12:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Recreate further in career when player become more notable —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.194.16.90 (talk) 12:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete this 17-year old. No sign he'll play soon. Nfitz (talk) 21:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhilKnight (talk) 17:33, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Batingting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Contested PROD. The article is a possible hoax. No reliable source is found. Google hits returns forums and comments only. bluemask (talk) 08:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:CRYSTAL and WP:RS. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 14:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I find not a single RS in [26], a load of "predictions" in a ABS-CBN forum thread with the title "Batingting (???)" is almost as far from WP:V & WP:RS as you can get, production doesn't seem notable → WP:NOTCRYSTAL. AmaltheaTalk 18:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per the arguments of Amalthea. Kingkong77 (talk) 13:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was withdrawn by nominator. Non-admin closure by PC78 (talk) 20:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ghost Cat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The reliable sources that I can find only has a plot summary and a cast list. Schuym1 (talk) 07:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 12:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep – I've added a few sources which mention the film. One of them included some critical commentary. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 16:54, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Found several nice external links. Added them to article. Can be used to expand and source. Schmidt (talk) 18:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I would like to withdraw this nomination because there are plenty of sources now. Schuym1 (talk) 18:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, with no prejudice to a merge being agreed to. There is little support for deletion here, with some supporting a merge (with a couple of different targets) but there is also strong support for the idea that a seperate article is fine. Davewild (talk) 17:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Birth tourism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable neologism; derogatory ethnically divisive term; lack of reliable sourcing; little or no encyclopedic value
- Delete as nominator. This is clearly a WP:neologism, apparently coined or adopted by a few ambitious journalists to make their story sound more juicy. Although it is clear from the sources that a small but unknown number of people indeed travel to the United States on a temporary basis in order to obtain natal care, and that the baby becomes a US citizen as a (sometimes intended) result, there is not enough sourcing to establish that the phenomenon is notable, much less the neologism. The term is often used condescendingly or in a bigoted way, much as anchor baby (which is how I found this article) or welfare queen. The differences between this article and those are that: (1) those terms are in widespread if not universal circulation, with major mentions in reliable sources to describe their use and/or use the term ("welfare queen" has 1350 google news hits[27] and "anchor baby" has 282[28] to 7 for "birth tourism"[29]), and (2) those articles are encyclopedic in that they describe the use, application, origin, etc., of the neologism, rather than endorsing the accuracy of the neologism as an apt description of a real phenomenon. Turning to the seven sources I see no significant reliable mentions. I found a couple reliable sources among the total 1,670 google hits[30] - - a Los Angeles local TV report, where the introduction (but not the body of the report) describes it as a new thing they've uncovered in an "investigation"[31] and a single 2002 L.A. Times feature from their South Korea desk.[32] Although the LA times is a reliable source, a single news source isn't enough to describe that there is a generally accepted term describing an actual class of immigrants. There are only 25-30 different kinds of visas and immigration methods in the US. If there were a legitimate term for one of them, it would appear in more legitimate sources than a single newspaper article and a single TV news segment. Again, it's just journalists trying to coin a term, and the term got a little play but did not catch on. - Wikidemo (talk) 07:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The LA Times reference [33] does indicate that this practise is widespread among some women in Asia. Virtually everyone who isn't American knows that if their child is born in America, their offspring automatically receives US citizenship. This is not a minor neologism and it is not racist to acknowledge the truth. However, the title of the article ought to be changed to something less provocative and more neutral if possible. Artene50 (talk) 07:54, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's the kind of stuff I was referring to:[34] Worried about flood of "black market" "Jamerican" babies. And here[35] they say it's part of "droves of illegal aliens invading the US." Here:[http://www.amren.com/news/news04/02/18/birthright.html] "the spectacle of women in labor dragging themselves through the Arizona desert in order to give birth to their very own tickets into the American social services network." Most of the (very few) uses of this term I can find are from low reliability right wing groups banging the drum for immigration reform. Not a real phenomenon as described. The practice is actually legal. Even if we can describe the phenomenon neutrally the phrase is generally a pejorative anti-foreigner term, not a real word - a racially tinged invective. And before you think that the Jamaica Observer or the American Renaissance are reliable sources, the first basically quotes the entire Wikipedia article, and the second is a radical white separatist magazine. - So far I've found only the two sources I mentioned, and a single LA Times article + a news clip introduction from the same city doesn't make an immigration phenomenon. Wikidemo (talk) 08:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't find the phrase particularly offensive. "Anchor baby" carries the connotation (and a rather spurious and farfetched one at that) that the child is being used as a means to an end -- that is to say, immigration status for the parents. That imputes mercenary motives to the parents which may not exist. "Birth tourism" seems a far more neutral description of a phenomenon which, to be honest, is rather well underrstood to exist in certain immigrant communities. It would be pejorative to impute it to all women who give birth while being tourists, but it would be to deny reality to assert that there aren't women who travel in order to give birth. In that sense, it's a phrase much like medical tourism -- which may provide implicit commentary on the quality of the medical system in destination and source countries, but does not carry any strong negative connotation. RayAYang (talk) 21:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The term isn't semantically offensive - not all epithets are. However, if you look at the very scant amount of usage the term gets, the majority of times it appears it's being used to demonize foreigners, so there is a negative connotation being attached to it. Someone who comes to America for purposes of giving birth is not a "tourist" in any normal sense. That designation is somewhat mocking, casting the act as frivolous or greedy.Wikidemo (talk) 22:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There's a relatively neutral (at least in title, haven't looked at text in depth) article that already exists which is just a description (Birthright citizenship in the United States of America). Both of the neologisms have NPOV issues. I'd actually prefer to redirect this exact phrase to Jus soli, which is the legal term for the idea of birthright citizenship, but most of this content is specific to the US and should be in the specific article. SDY (talk) 22:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There was a recent RFC on the use of "anchor baby" at that precise article. Part of the emerging consensus includes a short description and an internal link to the "anchor baby" article. Pejorative as it is, it is far more inappropriate to discuss it at length inside an article on US citizenship, rather than to describe it on its own in a neutral manner, as the current article does. RayAYang (talk) 13:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There's a relatively neutral (at least in title, haven't looked at text in depth) article that already exists which is just a description (Birthright citizenship in the United States of America). Both of the neologisms have NPOV issues. I'd actually prefer to redirect this exact phrase to Jus soli, which is the legal term for the idea of birthright citizenship, but most of this content is specific to the US and should be in the specific article. SDY (talk) 22:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The term isn't semantically offensive - not all epithets are. However, if you look at the very scant amount of usage the term gets, the majority of times it appears it's being used to demonize foreigners, so there is a negative connotation being attached to it. Someone who comes to America for purposes of giving birth is not a "tourist" in any normal sense. That designation is somewhat mocking, casting the act as frivolous or greedy.Wikidemo (talk) 22:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't find the phrase particularly offensive. "Anchor baby" carries the connotation (and a rather spurious and farfetched one at that) that the child is being used as a means to an end -- that is to say, immigration status for the parents. That imputes mercenary motives to the parents which may not exist. "Birth tourism" seems a far more neutral description of a phenomenon which, to be honest, is rather well underrstood to exist in certain immigrant communities. It would be pejorative to impute it to all women who give birth while being tourists, but it would be to deny reality to assert that there aren't women who travel in order to give birth. In that sense, it's a phrase much like medical tourism -- which may provide implicit commentary on the quality of the medical system in destination and source countries, but does not carry any strong negative connotation. RayAYang (talk) 21:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Your article here perfectly illustrates why 'birth tourism' is a notable neologism. Why do you think some US right wing groups want to repeal/amend the 14th amendment? They fear America would be swamped by these dubious new immigrants who give a bad name to this law. Everyone in the rest of the world--Asia, Africa, South America and the Caribbean--knows about birth tourism and America's famously liberal citizenship laws. What can I say...its the truth. Enough said. Artene50 (talk) 08:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Could stand to be better sourced, maybe even slimmed down a bit but the references are legit. - Schrandit (talk) 12:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Sourcing seems more than fine. Could be improved, but that's not a reason to delete. Hobit (talk) 15:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to Anchor baby, a far more notable term describing the same phenomenon. Jim Miller See me | Touch me 16:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I emphatically oppose the merger into anchor baby -- the latter term carries a related but different set of baggage. Anchor babies are involved in efforts for chain migration -- that is, bringing the entire family to a particular country. Birth tourism need have no other motive than to give the child being born a better future. RayAYang (talk) 21:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KeepMerge Important and very real concept, even if one particular term for it is perforce a neologism. I'd be wary of merging it to an article whose first reference admits that it's a deliberately pejorative term. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Better place to merge it, I'm happy to. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per the eloquence of Artene50. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 16:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge specific contents, with anchor baby, into Birthright citizenship in the United States of America. Redirect the title and the general description into Jus soli. SDY (talk) 20:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds good to me. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It's a neologism that has entered into global usage, and is notable in its own right. Nor is it clear to me that the terminology is necessarily derogatory. It seems a straightforward explanation of the purposes of certain travels, which are legitimate exploitations of current citizenship law in many countries. RayAYang (talk) 21:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- delete. These seems to be very little reliable secondary sources on the phrase and its usage. I would note that, unlike Anchor baby [36], the phrase Birth tourism [37] does not appear in American lexicographer Grant Barrett's award-winning web site Double-Tongued Dictionary. I would also note that some of the scant few newspaper references use the term with only the wikipedia article as a source, and so should not be used to bolster the case for inclusion of this term in a circular fashion. When and if the Double-Tongued Dictionary, or other reliable secondary source reporting on the phrase's usage and meaning, then it can always be re-added.--Ramsey2006 (talk) 00:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As I've already voted, I thought it might be helpful to supply further readers with a (short) selection of articles that use this phrase, although they do not examine it in the sort of depth to merit mentioning in the article itself as sources.
- Who Are the Citizens of Europe? by Rainer Baubock, first published in Vanguardia Dossier 22, January-March 2007.
- Hong Kong's Baby Boom Opportunity, from Britain's Daily Telegraph.
- Just what the doctor ordered: medical tourism in Monash Business Review, from Australia (behind a paywall).
- One Korean-American's Quest in the Korea Times of Seoul (clearly, an English version).
I think these provide ample evidence that this phrase, whatever its parentage, is now in global and common use, in several cases without even the benefit of scare quotes. RayAYang (talk) 04:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it proves exactly the opposite. The Vanguardia Dossier is an article in translation puts the term in quotes, making clear it's an unfamiliar word that needs definition in English. The Daily Telegraph piece is the closest to a reliable source but it's a bit of an essay, it's not a news story (which means it's the reporter's informal usage). The Monash University e-press piece is behind a login but doesn't seem to be a major publication (meaning if they use it, it doesn't establish that it's an accepted term). Finally, the Korea Times piece is an essay in an English-language Korean paper (meaning minor publication of specialized interest). I looked at all those and didn't think they are worth mentioning. The phrase only has 1,800 google hits for goodness sake! The only two significant sources/mentions I could find out of those were the LA Times and the local news story, also from LA. And that's it. A few mentions scattered here and there might be enough to marginally pass notability for a subject matter, but if the subject matter is supposedly a global phenomenon it does not establish that a word is a real term. If it were a real term it would appear in more than two reliable sources, and we generally avoid neologisms to begin with. If there is a phenomenon of women traveling legally to the US to have babies, and not just the happenstance of where people happen to be or where they get the best medical care, the term "tourism" doesn't describe it very well. Wikidemo (talk) 06:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A non-notable just-invented neologism that happens to be used by unrelated people on 4 continents, found after 15 minutes of Google searching on the subject? I think that's stretching the idea of non-notability. RayAYang (talk) 06:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, six times in six years among one billion speakers of English on eight billion web pages - grand total - does not establish a neologism as notable. In 30 seconds I find wider adoption on google for such phrases as "cat rage", "mouse mania" and "dog stop." It may or may not make the concept notable as a concept, but definitely not the derogatory neologism.Wikidemo (talk) 18:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A non-notable just-invented neologism that happens to be used by unrelated people on 4 continents, found after 15 minutes of Google searching on the subject? I think that's stretching the idea of non-notability. RayAYang (talk) 06:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Concept is referenced with WP:RS. Though name may be neologism, concept is valid, and at most, article should be renamed. Creator did a good job of contrasting views in a few countries to provide a more global point-of-view. Sebwite (talk) 16:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Jus soli. Neutralitytalk 03:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Article should be kept as is since it is sourced by reliable sources. This is a legitimate term. Artene50 (talk) 07:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closure. Jamie☆S93 17:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Willard C. Butcher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I don't believe a vice-president of Chase Manhattan Bank satisfies WP:BIO. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - there seem to be many reliable sources from which a bio can be expanded. This one[38] is a New York Times article that refers to him being the CEO, not VP, in 1988, presiding over a layoff of 3,500 people, and dealing with then Mayor Ed Koch. If you look through these (e.g. [39]) it looks like Butcher was the "hand picked" successor to David Rockefeller. He gets a couple mentions in a book on the "economic history of the United States"[40]. It looks like what happened is that he was VP at the time Rockefeller made the quote, but he rose to be CEO during a very important time in the bank's history. If you read any history of the bank or its new parent company JP Morgan Chase, Butcher's name comes up. This is simply a tiny stub in need of some expansion. Wikidemo (talk) 08:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Article could do with some work, but the subject appears to pass notability guidelines per sources listed by Wikidemo above. Wiw8 (talk) 09:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - per Wikidemo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.194.16.90 (talk) 12:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdraw nomination. The article did such a poor job explaining his significance that I didn't bother to doublecheck. My bad. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Catch and release (Congress) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
My impression is that the term "catch and release" is not notable in the sense of the usage described in the article. The only example given in the article itself does not even qualify under the definition given there and the reference given[41] does not mention the term. There is a reference at the talk page of the article that does mention the term in the sense described in the article[42], but it is a brief mention and I was not able to find anything else after quite a bit of googling. The term "catch and release" does get used in the U.S. politics, but usually it refers to something completely different, namely in the illegal immigration debate context. The term in the sense given in the article (as a congressional paliamentary tactic) appears to fail WP:N. Nsk92 (talk) 06:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom. RayAYang (talk) 19:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Westminster Diplomats (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Article over a high school basketball team with no sources to confirm any notability. Also, I didn't think that high school teams were notable, even if they won a national event. (most of the time I just see the sport section of a school in the school's article) Delete Undeath (talk) 04:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I'm sure highschool teams can be notable, but this one isn't. No reliable sources to be found [43] [44], fails WP:NOTE. --AmaltheaTalk 23:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Gone, spam like 99% of the user's contributions.. TravellingCari 20:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sixteen Miles to Merricks and Other Works (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Advert for very recently published book. Sgroupace (talk) 04:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete for advertising. Also, all the images are copyvios on commons. Undeath (talk) 04:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A7 speedy delete as copy vio on Commons and WP:SPAM. Also delete as WP:CBALL as the publication date is on August 13, 2008. Artene50 (talk) 09:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- comment The AfD tag keeps being removed by the same person as does the speedy tag. Protection maybe? Undeath (talk) 19:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:ADVERT, WP:CRYSTAL, WP:N, WP:COPYVIO and WP:NOT. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 19:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per all the above. It's spam for an unpublished or recently published novel. Bart133 t c @ How's my driving? 19:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Dragon Ball episodes. PhilKnight (talk) 16:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Dragonbox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and is simply a dvd box set release of a television show, aka simply the show in a box on dvd. It therefore is a completely unnotable article and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination. RobJ1981 (talk) 23:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into either Dragon Ball or List of Dragon Ball episodes. --Farix (Talk) 00:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I don't think we usually cover specific release information like that, so not worth merging. Doceirias (talk) 00:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, we do notice box-set releases, especially of more notable shows, and DB pretty much as notable as they come. However, they are not independently notable except as details about the series. Make sure this information is suitably covered in List of Dragon Ball episodes#English DVD releases (some of it seems to be) and redirect to there as a plausible search term, given the marketing. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Dragon Ball Drunken Pirate (talk) 20:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: why there and not List of Dragon Ball episodes, where other DVD releases are already discussed? —Quasirandom (talk) 19:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No reason, it was just a guess. Drunken Pirate (talk) 04:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: why there and not List of Dragon Ball episodes, where other DVD releases are already discussed? —Quasirandom (talk) 19:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Wikipedia does not make articles about individual DVDs (unless, of course, they are incredibly more notable than a DVD should be). - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The Clone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I question the notability of the subject, and the legitimacy of the edits. The article is uncited, and there seems to be a pattern of dropping indirectly related references to those that ARE notable, in order to make the subject appear notable as well.
Please remember that being asked a question by a reporter does not increase notability.
Relationships do not confer notability - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTINHERITED Trivial coverage is not sufficient to establish notability - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BIO#Basic_criteria Freqsh0 (talk) 04:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Lots of unverified info and very little verifiable coverage to establish notability. Of the few cited sources that are supposed to mention the subject, none are more than passing mentions ([45][46][47]) and one is a broken link[48]. Not enough here to pass either WP:BIO or WP:N. Nsk92 (talk) 05:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, defaulting to Keep, disagreement over whether this a valid list or not. Davewild (talk) 19:46, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- List of Olympic-size swimming pools in the United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non notable list. Does not satisfy WP:Note RogueNinjatalk 03:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Pointless article. WP:NOTDIR. – Jerryteps 04:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I hardly think that constitutes a valid justification - would you care to elaborate? Nick Cooper (talk) 11:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non notable list. Fails WP:N. Undeath (talk) 04:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, I agree with the above. JIP | Talk 06:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. Blackngold29 07:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: A precisely defined list of notable sports venues. Possession of Olympic-size swimming pools is commonly used as a measure of a country's sports' infrastructure. --mervyn (talk) 08:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: well-defined topic, important, as per Mervyn. Many different editors have contributed over 2.5 years to this well-established article: WP gains nothing by deleting it. PamD (talk) 08:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: A precisely defined list of notable sports venues. --Vintagekits (talk) 11:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep: As per Mervyn, Pam D & Vintagekits. Like List of Olympic-size swimming pools in the Republic of Ireland (which RogueNinja has also proposed for deletion), it covers a subject of great importance within swimming in the country in question, due to the relative rarity of such venues in both. As noted above, I do not think those who wish to delete the page have presented anything remotely like a valid justication for doing so. Nick Cooper (talk) 11:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: As per all the keep arguements given above. Dpmuk (talk) 13:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: cannot understand the reasoning behind any of the deletes, so default to a keep. List has clear, unambiguous criteria and meets verifiability and NPOV policy. Possible case for No Original Research but I don't think so. Paulbrock (talk) 22:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- PS - I'm not going to repeat my comments on the Ireland AFD - they should clearly be nominated and discussed together - can someone cleanly combine the two? Paulbrock (talk) 22:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTCASE. Most of the listings are not internal links to other Wikipedia articles, but are external links to the sites of the pools themselves. Few pools, regardless of size, are truly notable. Sebwite (talk) 16:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: As per various keeps above, notable subject within the country in question. Claire Bassett (talk) 19:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. What exactly makes these pools notable sports venues? They may be venues, but no assert for nobility is provided. Being of a specific size in this case does not mean that anything notable happens there. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - subject adequately covered by Category:Swimming venues in the United Kingdom.--PhilKnight (talk) 16:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - these are surely the swimming equivalent of major football grounds and sports stadia, and thus notable: it is difficult to think that each of these pools, like major football grounds and sports stadia, would not merit an individual article. The usual objections apply to the "replace with category" argument: categories don't show missing articles, and a list allows quick comparison between different items, much quicker than having to go through very article in a category one after the other.HeartofaDog (talk) 17:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, there is no consensus here on the merits or lack of merits of this list. Davewild (talk) 17:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- List of Olympic-size swimming pools in the Republic of Ireland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non notable list. Does not satisfy WP:Note RogueNinjatalk 03:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Pointless article. WP:NOTDIR. – Jerryteps 04:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I hardly think that constitutes a valid justification - would you care to elaborate? Nick Cooper (talk) 11:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, I agree with the above. JIP | Talk 06:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. Blackngold29 07:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: A precisely defined list of notable sports venues. Possession of Olympic-size swimming pools is commonly used as a measure of a country's sports' infrastructure. --mervyn (talk) 08:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: well-defined list, important as per Mervyn; article has had input from a large number of editors over 20 months, and WP would not benefit from its deletion.PamD (talk) 11:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: A precisely defined list of notable sports venues. --Vintagekits (talk) 11:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep: As per Mervyn, Pam D & Vintagekits. Like List of Olympic-size swimming pools in the United Kingdom (which RogueNinja has also proposed for deletion), it covers a subject of great importance within swimming in the country in question, due to the relative rarity of such venues in both. As noted above, I do not think those who wish to delete the page have presented anything remotely like a valid justication for doing so. Nick Cooper (talk) 11:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: As per all the keep arguements given above. Dpmuk (talk) 13:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTCASE. Most of the listings are not internal links to other Wikipedia articles, but are external links to the sites of the pools themselves. Few pools, regardless of size, are truly notable. Sebwite (talk) 16:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: As per various keeps above, notable subject within the country in question. Claire Bassett (talk) 19:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. What exactly makes these pools notable sports venues? They may be venues, but no assertion for nobility is provided. Being of a specific size in this case does not mean that anything notable happens there. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - these are surely the swimming equivalent of major football grounds and sports stadia, and thus notable: it is difficult to think that each of these pools, like major football grounds and sports stadia, would not merit an individual article. The usual objections apply to the "replace with category" argument: categories don't show missing articles, and a list allows quick comparison between different items, much quicker than having to go through very article in a category one after the other.HeartofaDog (talk) 17:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Not every stadium is notable, an a stadium's size does not make it automatically notable. Per WP:L and WP:NOTDIR, a list like this one is supposed to primarily consist of links to other Wikipedia articles or probable future ones, which in this case would be pools that either have articles or would likely qualify for them. This list appears to be one that provides external links to the sites of these seemingly non-notable pools, which is more like a yellow pages entry. unsigned comment by User:Sebwite 05:58, 10 August 2008
- Comment No-one is saying that every swimming pool / stadium etc is notable - just the, umm... notable ones. The claim to notability here is that Olympic-sized pools ARE significant in their own right (except perhaps in those very few countries that have so many that they cease to have individual significance) and more specifically so here because there are only two such pools (+ one also-ran) in the whole of the Republic of Ireland.
- Comment Not every stadium is notable, an a stadium's size does not make it automatically notable. Per WP:L and WP:NOTDIR, a list like this one is supposed to primarily consist of links to other Wikipedia articles or probable future ones, which in this case would be pools that either have articles or would likely qualify for them. This list appears to be one that provides external links to the sites of these seemingly non-notable pools, which is more like a yellow pages entry. unsigned comment by User:Sebwite 05:58, 10 August 2008
- As for links, of the three pools, two are already covered by articles on the larger facilities of which they form part, which doubtless can be expanded, and which the list already links to; and there seems no reason why the third should not also have an article. It seems illogical then to object to the inclusion of the relevant external links as well. HeartofaDog (talk)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhilKnight (talk) 17:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Exploding bird (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
WP:OR. Even if instances of birds exploding are mentioned in the media, there are no sources to support the claim that "exploding birds" are an encyclopedic subject. Also even if not OR, it fails WP:N Protonk (talk) 03:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete until page has been properly reference. Then Keep. If this article gets deleted would that mean that all the other "Exploding" animal articles should be proded aswell? – Jerryteps 04:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No. It would mean that this article would be deleted. Nothing more. Each AfD is a discussion on the article on its merits. If there are other "exploding animal" articles (aside from the exploding whale article, which is well referenced), you may improve them or nominate them yourself if you feel so inclined. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Protonk (talk) 04:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The nom is correct: the article is filled with OR and the topic does not appear to exist as a coherent subject discussed by any reliable sources as a distinct subject. Nsk92 (talk) 04:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, only consists of original research and popular culture section. JIP | Talk 06:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete A more than 3 year old article with lots of WP:OR and little WP:RS Artene50 (talk) 08:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhilKnight (talk) 16:58, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Salman Al-Abbasi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No convincing assertion of notability. Reyk YO! 03:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no indication of notable publications or awards for this youthful poet. --Dhartung | Talk 03:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No coverage by third-party reliable sources and most of the info in the article appears to be unverifiable. Nsk92 (talk) 05:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was A7. Housekeeping close. Protonk (talk) 03:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Minjo Brotherhood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Fails WP:WEB. Self referential. Relies on gamefaqs as a source. Consists largely of references to memes and groups within gamefaqs. Protonk (talk) 03:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhilKnight (talk) 16:58, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Chad Vargas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Article doesn't assert notability. A google search for ("chad vargas" "extreme wrestling league") only reveals angelfire websites and another wiki project. -- Darth Mike (Talk • Contribs) 02:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Chad Vargas#Chad Vargas Little Known Facts???
- Vain.
- Delete, if not Speedy Delete.
- Vengeance is mine, saith the Prime ♥ 02:41, 4 Aug 2008 (UTC)
- Delete no evidence of notability for wrestler or this minor league. [49] JJL (talk) 02:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Could not find any external sources. Also, I note that the article asserts that "Chad Vargas" is a fictional character, so I am a little confused about the whole thing. The article appears to have been written as if he were real. Lazulilasher (talk) 02:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: As per the above. – Jerryteps 03:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete Second nonsense article about a (fictional) wrestler posted by user. Beemer69 chitchat 03:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete. CSD A7. Bart133 (t) (c) 03:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, non-notable fictional wrestler. JIP | Talk 06:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete vain vanity in vain. JuJube (talk) 07:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:RS and WP:V. Cliff smith talk 19:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete as nonsensical per WP:SNOW. Totally devoid of any notability for Wikipedia. JGHowes talk - 17:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Lucas Biespiel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Fails notability Dlabtot (talk) 02:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Doesn't pass WP:BAND. Bart133 (t) (c) 02:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete. Artist does not assert notability and provide no sources. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 02:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- (Edit Conflict)
- Keep — "Lucas Biespiel is a 15 year old folk singer-songwriter in Portland, Oregon.
- No, not really. But Portland is, well, Portland.
- "The lyrical element of his music is not what you would typically expect to hear from a 15 year old..."
- There are not enough tags on Wikipedia for this article. WP:N, WP:BAND, WP:NPOV, WP:RS (MySpace? Are you kidding me?), WP:ETC...
- DELETE — Maybe Speedy Delete as Vanity page.
- Vengeance is mine, saith the Prime ♥ 02:46, 4 Aug 2008 (UTC)
- Comment The above was NOT an edit conflict with a keep vote, in case anyone else is tempted to check the history to make sure. --Dhartung | Talk 03:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no indication subject passes WP:MUSIC. --Dhartung | Talk 03:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not really sure what your problem with this site is. The guy's 15. He lives in Portland, what's wrong with that. The most professional website he has is myspace. Don't quite understand what you mean by not enough tags. Don't quite get this wikipedia lingo. All I was trying to do is set up a wikipedia site for a good musician who should be on here. If you'd like to help me with the professional part of it, be my guest. Don't just go all crazy and delete it.--Aitthen (talk) 05:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Your confusion could probably most easily be cleared up by reading WP:BAND, which describes the notability requirements for articles about musicians. Dlabtot (talk) 05:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 05:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've tried in Google News archives, and in a library database of newspaper and magazine articles, and have been unable to come up with any sources to establish WP:N notability. Delete unless sources are forthcoming by the end of this deletion discussion. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 05:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm wondering why you guys want to get rid of a wikipedia page about me. I know I haven't been in the newspaper: I've played one show (or formal show if you want to use the language on this cool page about me) and am not that popular, except to my friends, and people who were there. If you want some proof of my existence as a musician just go to the Hawthorne Theater Websitewhere I have my next show. I'm listed to play there on the 14 of September. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lbiespiel (talk • contribs) 05:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well to be frank, that's exactly it. You aren't notable, and you don't meet any of the guidelines of W:MUSIC. Plus, that you created your own article makes it very much a vanity article and in conflict with WP:COI. Seems like an open-and-shut AfD to me. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 05:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry about that I forgot to sign my name. I didn't make the page, someone who was at one of my shows did (aitthen, wish I knew who he/she was). Obviously they think I'm notable. I bet I could find a few other people who think I'm notable as well.--Lbiespiel (talk) 05:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read WP:MUSIC. Dlabtot (talk) 05:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry about that I forgot to sign my name. I didn't make the page, someone who was at one of my shows did (aitthen, wish I knew who he/she was). Obviously they think I'm notable. I bet I could find a few other people who think I'm notable as well.--Lbiespiel (talk) 05:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I already have. Now you go see the Hawthorne Theater Website, and look under the 14th of September.--Lbiespiel (talk) 05:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If you read WP:MUSIC, then you would understand why this is a done discussion. You've said yourself that you don't have much of a following, and you've only played one show. The problem isn't whether or not you exist, it's that you aren't notable enough in regards to WP:MUSIC. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 05:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Obviously he does have a following, or else I wouldn't have attempted to create this page.--Aitthen (talk) 05:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But that says nothing of the SIZE of his following. For all we know, you could be his only fan. I'm not speaking to his quality, but simply to the fact that the subject meets absolutely NONE of the WP:MUSIC, and has himself confirmed this. As I see it, it's pretty much just a matter of time until an admin closes this and deletes the article. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 06:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhilKnight (talk) 17:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Mike Williams (Wrestler) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Possible hoax. A google search for ' "mike williams" "extreme wrestling alliance" ' gave two hits. One for angelfire and one for a forum. -- Darth Mike (Talk • Contribs) 02:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Uhmm he's an idie guy perhaps you haven't heard of him.. Get a life do you think I'd write up something for the hell of it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ewlspike (talk • contribs) 02:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please see WP:V and WP:RS-- Darth Mike (Talk • Contribs) 02:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- comment:YES, I DO think you would. Vengeance is mine, saith the Prime ♥ 02:54, 4 Aug 2008 (UTC)
- Delete- I can't find any sources that show this guy even exists, let alone assert notability. Reyk YO! 02:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete per CSD G7. Doesn't assert notability. I'd also like to nominate Chad Vargas under that criterion, since it appears to be associated (notice the identical formatting). Bart133 (t) (c) 02:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete
- Mike Williams (Wrestler)#Mike Williams Little Known Facts section again?
- Spare me.
- Vengeance is mine, saith the Prime ♥ 02:54, 4 Aug 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, non-notable wrestler. Most likely fictional, as per resemblance to Chad Vargas. JIP | Talk 06:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete vain vanity in vain. JuJube (talk) 07:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The disclaimer at the bottom of the page on his league's web site says, "The Extreme Wrestling League is not affiliated with any real wrestling promotions such as World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE), Total Non-Stop Action (TNA), Ring Of Honor (ROH) etc. This is a virtual wrestling league and is intended for fun purposes only. All mentioned characters, storylines, etc belong to their rightful owners." [50] The subject is a non-notable fictional character. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Did an MSN search, and the only site for a wrestler named Mike Williams is a GeoCities page. Who knows if it's the same guy, but I'm not seeing any notability here. Giants2008 (17-14) 03:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 of the speedy deletion critera. AngelOfSadness talk 22:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hyperchamber (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Fails Music notability the band is not yet notable and should try again when it has gained some recognition in the media. %%-SYKKO-%% (talk to me) 02:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. WP:GARAGE could have been written about it. The only thing remotely approaching an assertion of notability is the phrase "The band wanted to perform in the John Horn Battle of the Bands 2007 but wasn't ready and says that they will try to perform in the 2008 Battle of the Bands". CSD G7 perhaps? Bart133 (t) (c) 02:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I dont know CSD criteria as well since I havent gotten into that but isnt G7 "Author requests deletion" I am not the author... perhaps I misunderstand the CSD guidelines though, but I do feel that it is important for me to make it clear that I am not the author so unless the actual editors whom have contributed to this article come forward that it does not fall under that criteria for speedy deletion. I found this article while doing a new pages patrol and tagged it for notability and decided to watch it. I am sad that the article hasn't improved because I tend to be more on the inclusionist side than deletionst. I apologize if my statement in any way suggested that I had personal attachment to this article, I am simply suffering from noobitus in my first nomination for AfD :( %%-SYKKO-%% (talk to me) 02:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you mean WP:CSD#A7. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 03:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- CSD A7, right. Bart133 (t) (c) 03:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, A7 makes much better sense, I agree that it pretty much does fit that criteria. %%-SYKKO-%% (talk to me) 06:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 03:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 05:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've tried a search in Google News archives, and also in a library database of newspaper and magazine articles, but have not found any reliable sources to help to establish WP:N notability. Delete unless sources are found by the end of this deletion discussion. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 05:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Great band name, but sadly failing WP:MUSIC, so Delete. I'd be in favour of WP:CSD#A7 too. sparkl!sm hey! 20:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There is a clear consensus to delete. In addition, the arguments favoring deletion were based on established guidelines, such as WP:NOTABILITY, while some of the arguments in favor of keeping the article appear to be based on the misconception explained at WP:INHERITED. PhilKnight (talk) 16:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Minor Deus Ex characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Detailed in-universe guide for characters that have no notability. Any characters that can demonstrate potential notability should be moved to Major Deus Ex characters (note also that Deus Ex: Invisible War characters lists notable characters for that game). Ham Pastrami (talk) 01:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Regretful Delete because Deus Ex is a masterpiece almost without equal, but the nominator is 100% correct. Reyk YO! 01:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 03:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination. RobJ1981 (talk) 04:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I see that Nicolette DuClare and Chad Dumier have their own articles and appear on the template, but are listed on this minor character list. Are they in fact minor characters? Pagrashtak 04:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The claim in Nicolette DuClare is that the character is minor in Deus Ex, but becomes a major character in Invisible War. I assume similar for Chad. I don't object to moving them into the major characters list as a precaution, but they are covered in the IW list. Ham Pastrami (talk) 07:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - ALmost no assertion of notability. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete — It may be notable in-universe, but not out-of-universe. MuZemike (talk) 06:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep A list of minor characters is, in my opinion, the right thing to do here for such a notable game. Exactly the kind of breakout articles we should have per WP:WAF. Hobit (talk) 15:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- keep - The individual characters are not that noteworthy but the game is notable for having an extremely complex plot and multitude of characters and this page reflects that. Mezigue (talk) 19:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is the preferred way to handle these characters. The particular ones that make up content in an article do not have to be individually notable--that in fact is why we use a combination article for breakout. DGG (talk) 23:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or merge with the major character list. I see arguments that a list of character is acceptable, but this overlooks the fact that we have two character lists here. Any characters important enough to be included in Wikipedia should be covered in the major character list (which should be renamed to remove "major"), and those not important enough to be included should not be included. Pagrashtak 04:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G7- author requested deletion by blanking the page. Non-admin closure. Reyk YO! 01:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Gumbercules (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Delete as Non-Notable. Couldn't they deal with this in the episode page where this "word" came about? Arbiteroftruth (talk) 01:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete per author blanking. So tagged. Reyk YO! 01:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Continue to discuss a merge though. Synergy 07:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- An injury to one is an injury to all (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The slogan is certainly not notable enough for inclusion. This isn't Si Se Puede. Suggest we delete and merge. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 00:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- OPPOSE and there's already a discussion to merge. There are other political slogans which are just as notable as this one. It may not be in common usage today but it was a very popular slogan in the 1930s. Ask anyone involved in the labour movement and they will tell you it is a notable motto.MiltonP Ottawa (talk) 00:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – Sorry to disagree, but there does seem to be enough coverage of the slogan to at least expand on the article as shown here [51]. I noticed that this coverage from well established – reliable – creditable – and trustworthy sources not only in the USA, but international outlets as well to establish Notability. ShoesssS Talk 00:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This does not appear to be a bona fide deletion nomination but rather a merge proposal. There is already a merge tag on the article and an ongoing merge proposal discussion at Talk:Industrial Workers of the World#Merger proposal. AfDs are not really appropriate forums for discussing merge proposals and should be used for actual deletion discussions. So it would seem that this AfD should be closed on procedural grounds. I don't have a firm opinion on the merge proposal itself, but the slogan does appear to be notable and to have substantial coverage. Even a filtered GoogleBooks search gives 167 hits[52]. Nsk92 (talk) 05:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -- As much as I dislike articles for "slogans", there are a lot of them. From support our troops to have a nice day. Theoretically, if we delete this one, we'll have to delete all the others. And I'm lazy. --Nik (talk) 10:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- keep An article is a good way to document this piece of history, which is what any slogan is. Hmains (talk) 05:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP As others have pointed out, the slogan is certainly notable and has been around for more than 100 years. Since Wikipedia, in its wisdom, sees fit to collect articles on other slogans which have been around for much less time, it makes sense to keep this one. SmashTheState (talk) 19:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP I've seen this slogan on signs at numerous job actions and protests. It is a very popular slogan, and it has a history that can be verified from Haywood's book, published in the late 1920s. Richard Myers (talk) 08:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – This slogan is 'notable,' in widespread use, and despite its origination with a single union - the Industrial Workers of the World - has been taken up by nearly every union in the English speaking world when they engage in solidarity actions. To add a new reason to the reasons in favor of 'keeping' by others above, I note that this historical appropriation means that the issue of origination and attribution would be difficult to address properly in the context of an article on the IWW generally. Given that other, much less notable slogans are part of the Wikipedia article set, it seems that this one should definitely be kept.Erik.w.davis (talk) 18:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhilKnight (talk) 16:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Anyware (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Unsourced article, written like an essay, about what appears to be a neologism. Google search turns up nothing but the Wikipedia article and passing mentions of the word in other contexts. Reyk YO! 00:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as unreferenced, non-notable neologism. Bart133 (t) (c) 00:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – If I am mistaken, I apologize. However, if this is the same software, as shown here [53] a definite keep.ShoesssS Talk 01:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I have read the article and re-read the article and re-read again. Have to agree, I misinterperted. Delete as a neologism. ShoesssS Talk 01:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The article does not appear to be about a specific software. --Evb-wiki (talk) 01:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Article appears to be both a neologism and original research. TN‑X-Man 19:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:RS and WP:V Artene50 (talk) 03:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 16:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- IP-CMS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
weak assertion of notability, no secondary sources provided -- BeezHive (talk|contribs) 00:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete- Apparent advertisment with assertions of notability that, even assuming they can be sourced, are spectacularly unconvincing. Reyk YO! 00:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete- as nominator, per reasons listed -- BeezHive (talk|contribs) 01:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as clear case of WP:SPAM and no WP:RS Artene50 (talk) 09:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete: Advertising. Schuym1 (talk) 10:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete this unreferenced spam. Cliff smith talk 19:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhilKnight (talk) 16:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sarah Jane Barnes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Contested prod; reason for deletion was As one of the tags says below, subject lacks reliable references. Most of the sources are from the subject's own web site: www.sjanephotography.co.uk Bart133 (t) (c) 00:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete- Search at IMDB yielded nothing (other than someone totally unrelated to this person). It is pretty much certain that an actor is non-notable if he or she is not on IMDB. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 00:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no non-trivial sources not connected directly with subject. --GRuban (talk) 20:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete, consensus is that they don't meet the notability guidelines at this time. Davewild (talk) 17:24, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Black & White Jacksons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable band, only 95 hits on Google for "Black & White Jacksons". Does not meet WP:BAND requirements for notability. Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 17:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't think google hits on their own is a good guide to notability. Looking at the hits. I found 4 links that might establish notability, if the sources are reliable. One from DCist, which appears to be a blog, but seems to have an editorial team, and published by a company (not a personal blog, in other words): [54]. 2 from the Washington City Paper music section, and blog respectively: [55], [56], and one from BrightestYoungThings, which seems to be a website about entertainment in Washington DC. The other hits seem to be mainly the usual blogs, myspaces pages, last.fm, and concert listings. Silverfish (talk) 20:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – Just not there yet. However, they do show promise as shown here [57]. I referenced and in lined sourced the piece, but feel they are just shy of inclusion. ShoesssS Talk 00:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply] - Delete as non-notable. -- Escape Artist Swyer Talk to me The mess I've made 23:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.