Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 August 5

< August 4	August 6 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 18:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harrisham Sonnet

Recently invented poetry form. Has received a little attention because it was used as the basis of a competition on a poetry website. But I submit that it is not yet notable enough for an article here. Especially since the author of the article could not be bothered to provide references. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 23:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NOTE due to lack of reliable sources. --Amalthea^Talk 19:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources to indicate notability has been established. Very little information about this available on the internet (9 ghits). I find it unlikely sources exist in print either when internet coverage is so lacking. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 21:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:06, 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 (non-admin closure), sources have shown that the subject is notable. Paragon ¹²³²¹ 19:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hilary McRae

Does not meet the notability criteria for musicians given at WP:MUSIC. Donald Albury 23:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It meets criteria 2 at WP:MUSIC. Her Album has been for 4 weeks within the top twenty on Billboard's Top Heatseekers. Her Single 'Every Day (When Will You Be Mine)' has been for 3 weeks on Billboards 'Hot Adult Contemporary Tracks'. Numberfield 02:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Numberfield: http://www.billboard.com/billboard/images/pdf/index_artist.pdf --Amalthea^Talk 19:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:06, 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) 18:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Funkaroo

Non-notable dance. WP:MADEUP Rob Banzai (talk) 23:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know it is a fairly unknown and new style of dancing, but if you would ask some people from the festival at Motovun, they would know about it. I think it would be unfair for these people to consider it to be a non-existing dance. This is all my humble opinion though, and I do not know much about Wikipedia's policy of articles right to exist, but I ask you to give this one article at least a chance, and see if other people will recognize it and deepen this article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreamaneer (talk • contribs)

Delete- the nominator is 100% right. Reyk _YO! 00:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG, WP:V and WP:RS. Cliff smith ^talk 00:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V. No proof that this even exists. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 00:03, 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, Nom withdawn. Lenticel ^(talk) 08:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shirime

Declined speedy. This looks like an obvious hoax, but I hate doing cross-cultural CSD's-- too easy to make a mistake. If this turns into a pile-on, don't-be an-idiot-type "keep" let me know and I'll withdraw. But I just can't believe what I'm reading here. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 23:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nom withdrawn with thanks.

Comment is it a copyvio? http://www.obakemono.com/obake/shirime/ looks like it could be genuine. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 00:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While this creature is indeed a strange one, it truely does exist in Japanese Folklore...
http://squeep.com/~shoes/mizuki/mizukishirime.jpg
I've asked the Mythology taskforce of WikiProject Japan group to approve this article... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Japan/Mythology —Preceding unsigned comment added by Happysmack (talk • contribs) 00:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC) Cheers![reply]
Chris aka HappySmack

This creature exists on the the Japanese Wiki page
http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%81%AE%E3%81%A3%E3%81%BA%E3%82%89%E3%81%BC%E3%81%86
It is the last creature mentioned: 尻目（しりめ） phonetically pronounced shi-ri-me
尻 is the kanji for 'rear'(shiri)
目is the kanji for 'eye' (me)
Here is a picture drawn by poet Yaso Buson:
http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%94%BB%E5%83%8F:Buson_Nopperabo.jpg

These entries are properly annotated with reliable sources
The AfD was added because of suspicion of being a hoax and vandalism.
These references should be enough to show that this entry is neither.
To consider this a hoax and CSD would be in contention of their work
Kindly withdraw AfD tag
Thank you! Chris

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elango

Dictionary definition of an Indian name. The article has been tagged for notability since February. Therefore it fails WP:DICTIONARY, WP:N & WP:V. Tavix (talk) 00:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A given name stub that is a part of the greater category:given names scheme. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:06, 1 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, Tavix (talk) 00:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Elango sounds pretty wierd to me, and I don't know any Tamil Tharnton345 (talk) 09:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If its notable, why are there no reliable sources for it? Wikipedia is not a dictionary for unverifiable names. Artene50 (talk) 10:17, 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) 18:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Yayo's second studio album

No confirmed release date, no confirmed title, no definitive confirmation of the album by the record label. Article is pure speculation, based on those factors, which violates WP:CRYSTAL Winger84 (talk) 23:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Do I even need to say it? This is exactly why I wrote WP:HAMMER. No significant sources, no verified tracks or title. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy speedy delete doesn't really need an explanation as to why does it? It is a complete non-article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul75 (talk • contribs)
Delete per WP:MUSIC. Cliff smith ^talk 00:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hit it with a Hammer. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 03:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article fails to give reliable sources about when the album is going to be released. Also fails WP:MUSIC#Albums, WP:V, and WP:CBALL. --Kanonkas : Talk 09:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article cites plenty of reliable sources - interviews from Tony Yayo himself. The album has also been confirmed by him as well as label head, 50 Cent. Why delete because other people say so? The article is fine and does not violate WP:CRYSTAL. The Eminem's sixth studio album article still exists after several AFD's, and that album has not been confirmed by and label at all either. Keep. --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 20:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See links below confirming/addressing the album. ^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]

^ Steve Raze (November 5 2007). Lloyd Banks & Tony Yayo: Shooters, Part 2. AllHipHop. Accessed November 6 2007.
^ DefSounds. May 22 2008. G-Unit Q&A Session Part 2. DefSounds. Accessed May 24 2008.
^ TRL. G-Unit on TRL (6/30/2008). DailyMotion. Accessed August 6 2008.
^ XXL (November 16 2007). Video: Real Talk with Tony Yayo. XXLMag. Accessed November 16 2007.
^ Yayo goes off, Young Buck gets ready. DefSounds. Accessed July 31 2007.

--¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 20:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The title, track listing, and release date must be confirmed by the artist or the record label. Until that happens, this fails WP:MUSIC#Albums and is therefore a violation of WP:CBALL. Cliff smith ^talk 21:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Artist statements are not reliable sources. In this day and age of the music industry, the artists themselves have very little control over when, or even if, there album(s) will be released. Until there is a confirming statement from the label on a reliable website, the article fails WP:MUSIC. --Winger84 (talk) 14:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails WP:MUSIC right now, and WP:N, as the sources (the artist) are neither reliable nor independent. - Toon⁰⁵ 20:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The user "G-Unit Boss" has CLEARLY made the album factual by evidence of references (above), therefore, the upcoming album DOES exist. Keep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.93.42 (talk) 10:33, 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, due to lack of references to establish notability. I'm going to redirect the article to Lisburn as a viable search term. Contact me you'd like to do a merge there. lifebaka++ 12:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Priesthill (Zion) Methodist

An article on a non-notable church in Northern Ireland. There is nothing significant about this church that would make it more notable than the billions of other churches in the world. The only reference links to the churches offical website and a check for sources found that most of them are databases listing just about every church in the region. Also, the current article is very confusing and is hard to read. Tavix (talk) 23:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, simply being 200 years old isn't good enough. Nyttend (talk) 17:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability not asserted, and probably doesn't exist. --Helenalex (talk) 01:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This is a substantial article, whose content ought to be retained in WP by some means. I do not find it confusing: it gives a coherent hisotry of the church, and I hope that some one will remove that tag. I have just wikified the article a bit and provided some more links (I hope correct ones). I believe the right solution for NN churches is usually to marge them to the town or village where they are. However, this is too substantial an article for that. While it is not well referenced, I have little dount that there are sources that mean that it meets the verifiability standard. In this case, merging it to the article on Lisburn would gravely unbalance that article. I have added this church to its churches section (which was merely a link farm list). It mgith have eben amalgamated with the Methodist Circuit (or district) of which it is part, but we do not appear to have articles on Methodist circuits or districts. However that is a solution adopted for primary schools in some countries (with school boards). For want of a suitable merge target, I say keep. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If being substantial and coherent was enough, we would have to allow half the articles on garage bands and failed political candidates which get posted. Why does this church deserve to have a page? Adding a sentence or too to the Lisburn article might be appropriate. --Helenalex (talk) 10:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if referenced. local history can be encyclopedic if there is actually any real content, as here. DGG (talk) 01:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment But the problem with this is that the content is not verifiable and is unreferenced. Tavix (talk) 01:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete until and unless reliable independent sources can be found. A quick google search pulls up nothing but the church website and directory entries. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:39, 12 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 16:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oolite (computer game)

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

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

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

Article on clone "based in spirit" on Elite, lacks a claim to notability and lacks significant secondary references. A single notable source with a brief mention does not satisfy WP:N Marty Goldberg (talk) 23:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. Marty Goldberg (talk) 23:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per Marty, I did a thorough search for reviews, articles, etc. regarding this game and haven't found any in significant sources aside from the one in Linux Format magazine. Keep - Now that the Macworld article was found, that's enough for me. -- Atama ^chat 23:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete — I could not find any, either. MuZemike (talk) 00:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Weak keep, as I did miss the Linux Format article. However, that is the only verifiable article that I see in the bunch. It still has a long way to go. The Macworld UK is iffy at best as far as WP:V is concerned. MuZemike (talk) 18:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment What do you mean "The Macworld UK is iffy"? -- ArchSaur 9:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep, nom spin statement "brief mention" is incorrect, a review in print publication is quite beyond normal clone coverage. MURGH ^disc. 08:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - So? "Beyond normal clone coverage"... Where is "clone coverage" in WP:N? For something to be notable, it must have significant coverage, and multiple sources are preferred. While that one page article in Linux Format is nice, it's not enough to stand on its own. -- Atama ^chat 14:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ Keep (MrStalker ^(talk) 17:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)). As Murgh stated the subject has some notability, although I admit it's rather thin. Better notability should be established. (Btw, if the article is kept it should be moved to "Oolite (video game)" per WP:VG/NAME.) --MrStalker ^(talk) 09:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The game is notable among Linux platform games. ArchSaur 10:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Is it? What references do you have to establish this, or is this your own original research? -- Atama ^chat 14:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - It is the truth, not any kind of "research" whatsoever. Simple Googling for Oolite proves it immidiately. I'm curious why did you post a link to "original research" article that claims "wikipedia doesn't publish original researches", because I don't try to publish any 'research', do I? -- ArchSaur 15:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC) — ArchSaur (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    - Comment - Googling Oolite proves that there is a version that will work on Linux, but I don't see anything to suggest that it's 'notable among Linux platform games', anymore so than a Linux version of Minesweeper would be notable among Linux puzzle games. Stating as such without citing a source is, you guessed it, original research. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 04:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I agree with Murgh and ArchSaur - the game has enough notability as I did a search and found many articles in the online gaming magazines about this game. -- Thyx 12:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC) — Thyx (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment - Would you mind sharing these, or are we supposed to take your word for it? -- Atama ^chat 14:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - I have already added some of them (but not all) to the article. If it is still not enough for you I can add more -- Thyx 14:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Oolite is mentioned in Retro Gamer issue 47, 2008, p.25, in a major article on Elite, in the "Elite A-Z": "O is for Oolite – Excellent homage to Elite that started off life as an OpenGL Mac OS X title. It was created by Giles Williams.". -- Scotliterary (talk) 13:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - WP:N states that to establish notability, sources address the subject directly in detail. What you list barely mentions Oolite, and it's an article about a different game, Elite. -- Atama ^chat 14:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - Oolite is reviewed as a game in its own right, and listed as an "Editor's Choice", in Macworld, 8 January 2007, available online here. A longer review of Oolite, along with a playing guide, was published on the online magazine PCBurn ("Linux Hardware Reviews and Linux Games"). Although PCBurn's review is no longer available on the magazine's website it can still be found in the web archive, here. -- Scotliterary (talk) 14:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment - I'm going to concede. Some of the links that people have published are from web sites with questionable reliability/notability, but Macworld is probably the biggest Macintosh magazine in the world. Being Editor's Choice in that magazine, when combined with Linux Format (another reputable magazine) seems to satisfy WP:N. We'd better make sure to have that Macworld review in the article as well. -- Atama ^chat 15:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Please be advised that canvasing is not allowed, as was done here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wgungfu (talk • contribs) 16:50, 6 August 2008
- Comment - Why do you think it was the canvasing? Canvasing states for "sending messages to multiple Wikipedians with the intent to inform them about a community discussion". But this message was not send (and it was not intended to be sent) to the Wikipedians but rather it was posted on the Oolite official forum (according to the rules of that forum). And btw Wgungfu would you mind next time to sign your comment as anonymous comments create disorder. Thank you in advance -- Thyx 16:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Looks like a friendly notice to me. No signs/proves threre were "messages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion". -- ArchSaur 16:34, August 2008 (UTC)
  - Comment You guys are new here, in fact your only contributions to WP are in regards to this AFD in direct cause of the post titled "...And now they want the Oolite entry removed from Wikipedia". So I understand that you're not being aware of how policy works and is interpreted here. The moment you came here and posted on Wikipedia, you became a wikipedian. Posting on discussion forums to try and influence an AFD is canvasing, and is looked down on. That posting, its title, etc. is designed to bring people - who had not been a part of Wikipedia before - in to this for the purpose of the AFD. You two are prime examples of that. Friendly or not is not the issue. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 16:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment New? What are you talking about? I've been registered since December 2007. And I haven't seen the forum post (I'm not even registered on that forum) before it was mentioned here. -- ArchSaur 8:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
      - Comment - You were registered December 28, 2008. Some people are lurkers long before they contribute, I actually was too, though I started contributing first as an anonymous IP and then created my account after. You'll have to forgive the suspicions (Wikipedia does have an assume good faith policy) but some of us were involved in another recent deletion discussion of an article for a similar game, in which someone was canvassing and suddenly a number of people created accounts or posted anonymously to support the game. That was a clear case of canvassing though, where there was harsh language about Wikipedia and the nominators on the forum and the new accounts had names identical to the forum accounts. In my eyes this isn't as clear a case, in fact on the forum where someone announced this AfD discussion, there was debate over whether or not this game really was notable enough. -- Atama ^chat 16:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment - Man, December 2008 is a future! (-: It's December 2007 when I registered. Ok, I understand you, just had an unpleasant "presumption of guilt" feeling because of untrue accusal of "just registered for this discussion only". -- ArchSaur (talk) 10:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        That is why we are supposed to look at user contributions and not necessarily when the account was started. Unfortunately, the only contribs you have made have been pertaining to this discussion, and that is something closing admins can look at when this discussion ends. MuZemike (talk) 19:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Yes I'm new here. I didn't come here from the Oolite forum, but rather I was searching for 'Oolite alien items' in the Google yesterday and WP:VG/D link was on the first search page. That interested me a lot and I followed here. Thus I'm not the "prime examples of" canvassing influence as you have written 'cause I found the Oolite forum discussion only after you have posted link to it (Btw how do you find that link? Are you the member of the Oolite forum?) -- Thyx 10:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Pleasd read this portion of WP:AFD: Unregistered or new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their recommendations may be discounted, especially if they seem to be made in bad faith (for example, if they misrepresent their reasons). Conversely, the opinions of logged in users whose accounts predate the article's AfD nomination are given more weight. MuZemike (talk) 18:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment As I wrote above I am new here (as a contributor, but not as wiki user). But it doesn't automatically mean that my reccomendation was done in bad faith, does it? When I found this discussion I decided to help to improve the Oolite article itself and after I did it I wrote my opinion on the discussion board (as you can see I have added 3 new references to the article and described some interesting specific of the MacOS' version of the game). So now please tell me your opinion, did I do it in bad faith or good? Thanks -- Thyx 10:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - What is quoted up there mentions nothing about good or bad faith. Unless something an action malicious or otherwise fishy (which wasn't), we always assume good faith in editing articles. Your contributions are always welcome. MuZemike (talk) 17:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notability has been established. --Frodet (talk) 17:44, 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 without prejudice to creating an encyclopedic article on this subject. PhilKnight (talk) 18:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prewriting

per WP:NOT#HOWTO KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 16:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Not How To Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 22:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Impossibly bad article, but this is actually a well know pedagogical subject if anyone wants to deal with it properly. There's a good deal of material on its role in language instruction. DGG (talk) 03:05, 1 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, jj137 (talk) 23:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As DGG writes, it's a fine topic, a quick Google brings up a zillion hits, many from fine universities, so we should have an article - but this isn't it. In fact, I don't think a good article on the topic will incorporate a single sentence from the current article. As Geogre used to write, "de novo". --GRuban (talk) 17:44, 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. Since a lot of the debate depended on the defluffing and it has just recently occurred, it may be better to renom rather than relist. Wizardman 01:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Soft water path

Article is an essay of sorts, or failing that, some sort of advertisement. It seems to be a WP:COATRACK of sorts for Peter Gleick; it contains a great deal of WP:OR. The larger issue is that there's nothing here that seems encyclopedic. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom as original research. Vquex (talk) 00:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This vote is for a delete; the template was deleted on Aug 1. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 23:17, 12 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, jj137 (talk) 23:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and defluff. The article isn't written as clearly as it could be, so at first reading comes off as puffery for Gleick, but it looks like there is actually something here to write about. These all seem to be unrelated and reasonably respectable, if environmentalist, sources: IISD Water Sustainability Project Alternatives Progressive Policy Institute Friends of the Earth University of Waterloo Gleick's own work on the subject is published in some pretty heavy-duty journals. Science and Nature. We've got articles on most of these bodies, they range from the at least notable to the highly respected, and I don't think they would serve to disseminate press releases. Unfortunately, I don't know a body of water from a hole in the ground (...err...phrasing...), so I'm not volnteering to rewrite this, but it does seem a thoroughly encyclopedic topic. --GRuban (talk) 01:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, but only if cleaned up substantially. It reads like some promotional page on a website. Keep the information, trim the fat, and meh, it's good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alinnisawest (talk • contribs) 01:14, August 12, 2008
Delete unless it is thoroughly rewritten, because it reads like a pamphlet. Also, some fragments are taken straight from this site: http://www.pacinst.org/topics/water_and_sustainability/soft_path/index.htm Stijndon (talk) 18:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect-- as others have noted above, this is an essay based on a neologism from a single scientist's work (Peter Gleick), rather than an encyclopedic article on a well-established subject. There's nothing inherently wrong with such new topics, but they should be ones that are widely researched/discussed. Redirect the topic to the author Gleick's article, where a short summary is all that's needed. --HidariMigi (talk) 23:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I cleaned up the article slightly. I have no strong opinion on whether it should be deleted or not, but could not tolerate the extreme puffery anymore. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 00:38, 13 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 unverifiable. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A.Town

This article is unreferenced, un-sourced (I have tried to find some sources myself (and failed)), un-notable (per Wikipedia:Notability), orphaned but for a very similar page, and is riddled with typos and grammar mistakes CharltonTilliDie^Talk/_Contribs 18:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's a hoax/in-joke. (See also Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/C-Unit) 86.44.27.125 (talk) 17:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete typos etc. could be fixed, but this is either a joke or absolutely non-notable. JohnCD (talk) 18:58, 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, jj137 (talk) 23:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hoax, no such beast, shouldn't be wasting more time on this. --Baba's camel (talk) 23:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Unsourced, doen't even attempt to assert notability. Edward321 (talk) 23:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG, WP:V and WP:RS. Cliff smith ^talk 00:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:08, 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. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Services over the Messenger

Total neologism, I would go so far as to call it made up. Google had never heard the term. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If the concept exists, the article should be under the term by which the vast majority of people refer to it. Looks like this is not the case here. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 21:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unsupported neologism. JohnCD (talk) 18:54, 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, jj137 (talk) 23:01, 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. Last two opinions discounted as unsigned. Sandstein 17:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kashyyyk

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and is simply a repetition of the appearances of the planet in various Star Wars media, thus repeating those articles plot sections. It is trivial, duplicative, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dark knight curse

So, is this rag-tag compilation of happenings worthy of a page? Some publication once grouped them as "Dark Night Curse." As far as I am concerned, I would think this is not notable. Is it? Stijndon (talk) 22:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't pass notability as is. Only one of the citations specifically uses the phrase "Dark Knight Curse", with two others simply having articles similarly discussing the fact that several cast members have had problems. Are we going to now assume that "similar spins in articles" somehow makes up for this? One source = one web reporter's catchphrase, not a trend, meme or theme. -Markeer 00:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unnotable neologism. Artene50 (talk) 10:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 21:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the list. Not enough there to prove any notability/ Schmidt (talk) 01:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, which is why I started this AfD Stijndon (talk) 14:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS... this has no legs at present, unlike Curse of the Bambino and others of its kind. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Dark Knight (film); not notable enough for a separate article but should be mentioned in the article about the film. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 21:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. PhilKnight (talk) 18:30, 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.

Crstyle the Great

The result was delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - Contributors couldn't agree on whether the available sources are independent and/or demonstrate the notability of the subject. Without wishing to prejudice the future of this article, I suggest that the interested editors consider merging this article with Cloud City. (non-admin) SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bespin

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is an in-universe repetition of plot sections of various Star Wars articles. It is therefore duplicative, trivial, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roses, Kings, Castles

It's just a man, his guitar and his Myspace page. I don't think this little side project should have it's own article. What there is to be said about "Roses Kings Castles" can be said in the article about Adam Ficek. (However, I'm not even sure if HE is notable enough in his own right for an own article). Malfacteur (talk) 07:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Merge the lot, lock, stock & barrel into the Adam Ficek page. While the ref's do allow WP:MUSIC#C1 to be met, the manchestereveningnews.co.uk one would be better served in Adams article than this one, as the only mention of Roses, Kings, Castles is a trivial one right at the end. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 08:11, 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, jj137 (talk) 21:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Adam Ficek per above. May want to consider having Roses, Kings, Castles redirect to the Ficek page. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 22:24, 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 23:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the page should remain open but requires a bit of a tidy up. I believe it should stay open because Roses, Kings, Castles is a band in its own right with an album coming out very soon - you can pre-order it on amazon. DannyYoung (talk) 19:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Well, even though I was the one who nominated this article for deletion, meanwhile I came to the conclusion it would be better to merge it with the article about Adam Ficek. There's in fact an album coming out soon and it can in fact be already pre-ordered. However, "Roses Kings Castles" is not a band, it's just Adam Ficek. So there's no need for an own article. Malfacteur (talk) 21:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with consensus to Merge - makes sense. --Alinnisawest(talk) 01:15, 12 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. Any subsequent move, redirect, etc. is an editorial matter. Sandstein 17:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wraith Squadron

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and is just a huge repetition of the plot sections of various Star Wars articles plot sections. IT is therefore duplicative, trivial, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the book. Umbralcorax (talk) 03:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in some capacity due to titular nature of book for which reviews exist and which therefore means out of universe context and legitimate search term. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

you have no idea what's in those book articles, so therefore cannot hold them up as evident of notability. (You know this, having been told so a thousand times). Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter what's in them. Wraith Squadon is the TITLE of books and as such is a legitimate search term. The key now is to find reviews. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your keep vote is strange considering you haven't presented any definitive proof of the articles notability. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? The title of a book that is part of a major franchise makes the search term notable. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And when does being a search term necessitate an article? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When it's on the paperless encyclopedia that anyone can edit and those editors do in fact believe the topic is worth their volunteer time to improve since 2005. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I made dozens of articles at one time about my favorite series of novels for young adults, and you know what I did? over time, I consolidated them down, and put them up for deletion. Why? Because they weren't notable, and I had them transferred to a fan wiki I started. So I do sympathize with those who poured themselves into making these articles, but they still do not belong here. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why they don't belong here, especially given the sources independent of the topic (i.e. reviews) that provide more than plot details. In other words this article, which is at worst redirectable, should not be deleted. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - none of the sources are independent of the topic. "Making of..." media is good for sourcing, but doesn't constitute notability, as it is not independent from the publisher. As it stands, asserts no notability and contains excessive plot details. No prejudice against a redirect to the relevant article. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 05:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete So significant coverage of the subject itself (apart from mentions of the subject incident to characters or other things). As best I can tell (I don't own the 'making of' book, but I own the other one), the sources refer less to the squadron than to the characters in it (mentionins of the squadron appear to be trivial) Neither a significant element of the star wars universe nor significant outside the start wars universe. This article consists almost entirely of content that violates WP:PLOT and looks like WP:OR (lots of speculation from the point of view of the editor). The subject itself fails WP:GNG and no enacted daughter guideline covers the subject. As for the claim that "titular elements" of fiction are notable, I don't see that in the enacted WP:N or the proposed WP:FICTION. Delete this article. Protonk (talk) 07:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Star Wars: X-wing (book series) - This is and cannot become any more than a large scale plot repetition of the novel series in question. Consequently, it is much better served at most as a redirect towards Star Wars: X-wing (book series). Reiterating the plot of those novels in an in-universe style here with no verifiable real-world information is not in the least bit necessary. I'd like to see the image retained though, I'm sure a place can be found somewhere at Star Wars: X-wing (book series). -- 16:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Comment: Given Wraith Squadron (novel), no one has provided any even remotely persuasive reason as to why in the worst case scenario this notable subject would not be redirected there without deleting the edit history, not to mention that it is unoriginal and verifiable research that is notable to a real world audience and meets our notability guidelines even as is. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It will be "unoriginal research" when someone provides reliable, third-party sources to reference using in-line citations. Currently, it is only written based on what someone has read in the series and then collected together into an article - original research. Something does not suddenly become "unoriginal research", or verifiable and notable simply because you say it is without providing clear sources that are substantive in coverage, reliable and third-party. Don't point to your Google search, one quarter of the entries aren't third-party, one quarter relate to entirely different franchises such as StarCraft and Terminator and the remaining half are simply books where the word "wraith" or "squadron" are used (usually the words aren't even together). -- Sabre (talk) 17:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews of the novel constitute unoriginal research and substantial coverage for a paperless encyclopedia. It doesn't matter how it is currently written per Wikipedia:Potential, not just current state. I see nothing hoax esque or libelous in the edit history that necessitates outright deletion. Article could easily be redirected with the edit history intact and we don't need an AfD for that. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Produce reviews that provide substantial coverage of the fictional squadron then. Substantial coverage is more than a few sentences in a review. -- Sabre (talk) 17:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree; substantial coverage is mentions in reviews of a titular work. Whether you think the fictional concept is valid, Wriath Squadron is the title of a novel and one associated with about as notable of a fictional franchise as there is. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still waiting for a reliable, independent review to be posted that specifically references the squadron (whether by your definition of "substantial coverage" or the rest of the world's). Your words are empty without sources. I don't dispute any redirection argument, I dispute your assertion that the nominator is wrong when he says it is unverifiable and non-notable original research. -- Sabre (talk) 17:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What have your searches turned up? --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A whole bunch of blogs, fan sites and user reviews: nothing reliable. In short: I turned up diddly squat. Hence my AfD comment in favour of deletion or redirection of the article. -- Sabre (talk) 17:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Articles that can be redirected need not have their edit histories deleted. We only do that if there's something potentially legally offensive in the edit histories. People can boldly redirect or better yet have a talk page redirect discussion. This AfD however is unnecessary. Plus, such reviews as this appear on what to some might appear as a fan site, but in actuallity is a respected and reliable site concerning Star Wars. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's still nothing in it relating to real-world information on the squadron, regardless of the reliability of the review. The only information is the brief synopsis that most reviews include for context. There's no information on the reception of the fictional squadron. -- Sabre (talk) 18:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is enough to suggest at worst that the article could be redirected to the one on the novel, i.e. something we don't need an AfD to do. This all is an editorial talk page discussion not AfD worthy. There's no urgent pressing need to redlink the article in question. If editors think that the topic would be best covered in the novel article or that it should be redirected there, that's not a call for deletion. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A list of fictional characters and their roles within the plot; Entirely in-universe information with no real-world content. The squadron itself or its memebrs do not appear to have received substantial coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 02:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Using reviews that comment on the characters provides out of universe information. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:33, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been asked to produce reviews that do that, and have not. The one you have posted does not give any real-world information about the squadron or the characters in any measure of substance, only of the book. -- Sabre (talk) 17:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you type in the character names with Wraith Squadron (for example, [1]), sufficient sources come up to demonstrate notability, verfiability, and provide out of universe context. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:46, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still seeing nothing but in-universe coverage, references that refer to the book and references could be used to attest to Wedge Antilles notability, but not to the squadron. Google searches alone prove nothing. Once again, I ask you to produce a solid reference that provides real-world information - ie the development of the squadron by the author, or critical reception of the concept by reliable third-party reviews - about the fictional squadron: not the official books that bear its name, not the characters like Antilles whose notability is not in question here and who have significant roles outside of this novel series, and not an open ended Google search or Google Books search with poorly defined parameters with results that you clearly haven't checked through for reliable, secondary and substantive sources. If you (or indeed anyone else who wishes that the article is kept) cannot do that, and continue to state that it is notable without any actual sources to back it up, then this discussion is little more than pointless filibustering. -- Sabre (talk) 20:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please look harder. The onus is on those wanting to delete to provide compelling reason that the article in question must be redlinked after five days. Given the existence of the book, I am not seeing any compelling evidence of that. The results of the Google searches are what matters and in those results is sufficient information providing real-world information in terms of third-party comments. The article provides a navigational function to the articles on characters such as Antilles who you indicate is notable. You don't seem to be thoroughly checking through the sources and are just filibustering to get it deleted when there is no convincing evidence that it should be. Multiple appearances in multiple published books equals unquestionable notability whether its using the article for navigational purposes to other articles or as sub or spinoff article of an article on the book. Just as such reviews as this, which comment explicitly on the characters in the book can be used for any out of universe commentary. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*sigh* Officially published books that are part of the Star Wars franchise are not third-party sources... come back when you can be bothered to comply with WP:V. -- Sabre (talk) 20:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sigh* Which I why I also linked to at least two other reviews by secondary or third parties sources. Please actually read other editors' posts and come back when you can be bothered to comply with WP:V as the burden is indeed on those wanting to delete. Ignoring secondary sources when they have been presented is not a legitimate reason for deletion; it is just bizarre. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first review as already stated has no coverage of the concept of the squadron whatsoever, only of the book and is therefore completely and utterly 100% useless in this discussion. I cannot make that any clearer. The other is perhaps suitable (but not enough on its own), but does not strike one as a particularly reliable source. How do they check their information? Have they been referenced to by other sites that are reliable? Do they have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy? "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material" (ie not on those who have misgivings about an article and believe the best course of action is to remove it) "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found on an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it". On that note, I've had it with this discussion. I can see why so many others have lost their cools with you in AfD, so I'm bailing out of this before I too say something I'm going to regret later. -- Sabre (talk) 14:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both of these sources have significant enough coverage of the concept of the squadron that when coupled with the NUMEROUS published books we can verify the contents of the article. I cannot make that any clearer. Multiple appearances in multiple books equals notability by any reasoinable standards. These are reliable sources in that they verify the information and we have no reason to doubt what they claim. Even so called accepted reliable sources like The New York Times have proven unreliable (see Jayson Blair). The burden in AfDs is with those trying to delete. We are cataloging human knowledge. That's what encyclopedists do, not decataloging it. We keep and maintain information unless others can show it's a hoax or libelous. No one is showing that this notable and verifiable information is such. These aren't fictional characters I made up and am trying to pass off as an article, but a group that appears in a slew of published books and that is mentioned in multiple reviews of the books and even in a book on the characters. Given the numerous published encyclopedias on Star Wars, we can't deny that aspects of Star Wars are encyclopedic. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. And move Wraith Squadron (novel) to Wraith Squadron. Taemyr (talk) 04:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We can merge the novel information here and just redirect Wraith Squadron (novel) thereby keeping the edit histories intact. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:33, 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 18:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kings Horses (Jet song)

Non-notable, unsourced —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Shine On (Jet album). WWGB (talk) 13:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 15:12, 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, jj137 (talk) 21:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the album; the song itself shows no independent notability. Ironho lds 11:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete we don't need redirects from every song to it's album. - Nabla (talk) 12:27, 12 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 per an apparent WP:HEY. --jonny-m t 15:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RadioTux

Contested prod. Article fails to explain why this podcast out of so many thousands, is notable. No mention of awards or other honors that might establish it's notability. Zero 3rd party references. Rtphokie (talk) 12:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as insufficiently notable. No evidence of non-trivial coverage of subject by multiple, reliable, third-party published sources. Searches on both LexisNexis and Yahoo! News produce no results for this subject. — Satori Son 13:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete I edited the article and put some refs on it. hope thats enough. also see the talk page. Savar (talk) 17:10, 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, jj137 (talk) 21:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:N. No mentions in reliable sources. Undeath (talk)
Keep after reading the German Wikipedia AFD discussions for this article here[2] and here[3] I'm ambivalent, but I'm inclined to keep it. I'm mindful of WP:N but it's a guideline rather than a policy, which means exceptions can be made when circumstances demand. In this case, I think they might.--S Marshall (talk) 23:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep, as: the original article wasn't really good, but it has been extended by translating content from german wikipedia which is much more precise on this topic, several sources have been added. Media coverage can be found in german media mainly. RadioTux is notable according WP:WEB as it indeed has notable sources, is not temporary (RadioTux exists constantly since 2001) and produces monthly radio shows for download (Radio on demand). This in mind RadioTux has been one of the sites introducing podcasting as this concept was new when the website and idea was born, podcasts came up later. Like Wikipedia RadioTux produces free content, available as radio shows (including free music), podcasts (single articles) and live programm on notable FOSS events. So after improving the article (which should go on further) I'd like to keep the article. --Manuel Schneider^(bla) (+/-) 05:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the article in its current state fulfills the notability requirements, although it desperately needs to be proofread. Ironho lds 11:47, 12 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 01:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Skin and Bones (song)

Non-notable, unsourced. If this is released as a single, recreate. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Shine On (Jet album). WWGB (talk) 13:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 15:12, 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, jj137 (talk) 21:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to album; the song shows no notability independent of the band or album. Ironho lds 11:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because the page says nothing about the song that wouldn't also be on the album's page. Also, I think that not every song should redirect to its album. Whoever types Skin and Bones is going to wind up at the Foo Fighters, and who would ever write (Jet Song) behind her search? If it becomes a single, it can redirect Stijndon (talk) 18:50, 12 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. Redirecting for now since article's unsourced, but content's there. Wizardman 01:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Tech Show

Delete and Merge to Tech 2.0 (The Show). The pograms are not notable enough to warrant separate articles. Suggesting merger to the current name ChiragPatnaik (talk) 10:31, 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, jj137 (talk) 21:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because it looks like a legitimate show. At the very least it should redirect to Tech 2.0 after a merge. Stijndon (talk) 18:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge / redirect: Not able to stand alone, per nom. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - we do not need two articles on the same subject --T-rex 01:12, 13 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. Gazi moff 23:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

God (Paul Weller song)

Fails WP:MUSIC as it is not a notable song. Tavix (talk) 02:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 03:50, 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, jj137 (talk) 21:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MUSIC. There's nothing on this page that isn't at 22 Dreams anyway. Cliff smith ^talk 23:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Either delete or redirect to the album as a non-notable album track, but it's a relatively unlikely search term with the brackets and all.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:36, 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 15:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Olive Yu

voice actor with but one credit to her name, therefore does appear to fail WP:ENTERTAINER. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. At least two credits, since the ps1 and PC versions of Dino Crisis were done separately. IMDb doesn't list everything. --Eastmain (talk) 04:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, two credits does not notability make. Punkmorten (talk) 08:39, 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, jj137 (talk) 21:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

provisional delete - absolutely no assertion of importance/significance, no sourcing to reliable 3rd party sourcing which cover the subject in a non-trivial manner. If someone has better luck finding and including these in the article than I have I'll reconsider. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:58, 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) 21:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SSRA N3 Offline Challenge Series

Unsourced promotional article for non-notable local racing simulator league. Royal broil 04:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Each race averages around 14 competitors, with some fields approaching 20 cars." The same person has won most of the races. This has to be a local simulator racing league. Do we have articles on local bowling leagues? Royal broil 16:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No assertion of notability Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 00:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable video game racing league with no coverage in any sources -- Whpq (talk) 13:40, 31 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, jj137 (talk) 21:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete as non-notable. No sources provided apart from the website of the league. Seem to be no reliable sources. Only 6 google hits for "SSRA N3 Offline Challenge Series", 2 related to the wikipedia article, one sourced from an (un-sourced) wikipedia article: NASCAR Racing 3, and others seem to related to the league its creators. No hits on google groups, google news search, or google blog search. Similar for "SSRA N3": 7 google hits, from wikipedia, unrelated hit, free hosting pages from those related to league and profile of a contestant at a nascar fan site, no google groups, news, or blog hits. Silverfish (talk) 17:01, 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 non-admin closure as duplicate discussion already exists at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BRIO - Publishing Made Simple. Gr1st (talk) 22:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BRIO (publishing company)

Non-notable publishing company. References deal more with RAVEN magazine than the company itself and article is mostly advertising. TN‑X-Man 20:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest speedy closure: this article was already created at BRIO - Publishing Made Simple, where an AfD discussion is already ongoing. Have asked author to {{db-g7}} this version. Gr1st (talk) 20:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, just gone ahead and G6-ed it myself as it's probably not controversial. Gr1st (talk) 21:08, 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 speedy deleted G3 as obvious hoax by User:Orangemike; for starters Rangers won the 2002-03 SPL. TerriersFan (talk) 21:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revival Football Club

Delete WP:HOAX Mayalld (talk) 20:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've just nominated it for a speedy under g3. It's been deleted once tonight on those grounds. Ged UK (talk) 20:49, 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) 18:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tea at The Treedome (Spongebob Squarepants)

From WP:EPISODE: "The main purpose of plot summaries is to provide context for the rest of the information." This is entirely plot summary, apart from an actual transcript of the dialogue. Not material for an encyclopedia - and isn't the transcript a copyvio? JohnCD (talk) 20:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The proper place for comiccruft like this is Wikia, specifically wikia:spongebob:Tea at the Treedome from whence this was copied. (Wikia is licensed under the GFDL so creating the article here is not a copyvio - except for the transcript.) — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 20:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the transcript, which is what prompted me to AfD this, has now been removed by RHaworth as copyvio. The remaining article is no worse than many other episode articles, but I would still propose deletion as it seems pointless to copy into WP material which is available in Wikia, and which is the sort of thing Wikia is for. JohnCD (talk) 21:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As stated, this is information more appropriate for Wikia. Enigma ^message 21:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nominator's observations. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of SpongeBob SquarePants episodes. As stated by others, wikipedia is not the place for this kind of cruft. The episode list has brief summaries or each episode adequate for an encyclopedia Frank Anchor ^{Talk to me} 04:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frank, Tea at the Treedome (without the disambiguation) already redirects to the list of episodes. I don't know if this page needs to redirect because I doubt many people would be searching for "Tea at the Treedome (Spongebob Squarepants)" NewYork483 (talk) 17:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom NewYork483 (talk) 17:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:25, 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 as he fails WP:ATHLETE. If he plays for West Ham, drop me a note on my talk page and I'll restore the article. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 23:16, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Junior Stanislas

Contested PROD stating he's played in for West Ham in an "MLS All-Star game" - however this is not a competitive game and nothing more than another pre-season friendly to West Ham. Has not played for another club in a competitive league or competition so he fails notability at WP:ATHLETE --Jimbo^[online] 20:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - MLS Allstar game is sort of notable, but then again so is the Emirates Cup, Franz Beckenbauer Cup and the Feyenoord Tournament, and these are all friendlies. Delete per nom. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 20:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE, a notability guideline which is pretty inclusive! Also no sources. - Toon⁰⁵ 21:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - MLS Allstar game is the biggest non-playoff football game in Canada and the United States. Junior Stanislas played in the 2008 game. In addition he has played in most West Ham pre-season games; he is clearly part of the first team for the season that begins in 11 days, meeting the spirit of WP:ATHLETE now, and the legalese in few days time. There is no doubt that if this article is deleted, it would have to be recreated within days. Deleting an article we all know will exist shortly, is WP:BURO and also violates both the third and fifth pillar of Wikipedia. Nfitz (talk) 22:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment keeping him on the basis he might play for West Ham in 11 days is crystal balling - which he is unlikely to do anyway. --Jimbo^[online] 22:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Given the likelyhood of the event, WP:CRYSTAL doesn't apply. Nfitz (talk) 06:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - And what's this "likelihood" based on? --Jimbo^[online] 12:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - His frequency of appearance with the first team in pre-season games. As noted above. Nfitz (talk) 22:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - He's only started one pre-season friendly. The rest have all come from the bench in matches where multiple subs are used. Playing a couple of pre-season friendlies does not pass notability. --Jimbo^[online] 23:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        No it doesn't, but it's immenently inevitable, as he is clearly part of the first team and there are no indications he won't continue to play as the season starts. Though the point is moot - he did play in the biggest game so far this year in Major League Soccer, so WP:CS suggests he is notable. Nfitz (talk) 00:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 11:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; Once he plays, the article can be restored/recreated, but right now the subject is merely non-notable. --Angelo (talk) 09:38, 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. No references, listing-only and OR with no assertion of notability or encyclopedic content. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 23:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neelanshu

Not sure Wikipedia is for the collection of uncommon Indian names. Ged UK (talk) 20:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unless there is at least one notable person bearing that name, such an article should not exist. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:28, 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 by User:Orangemike. Non-admin closure by PC78 (talk) 21:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

National Treasure: Page 47 (film)

per WP:CRYSTAL, there are no reputable sources stating that this film is in production or being written KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 20:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, no proof that it exists yet. And just why do so many people insist on putting "(film)" at the end of movie names even when it's not needed? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Total content right now is "National Treasure 3: Page 47 article no longer available". The author has removed the prod several times. This is WP:CRYSTAL all the way through. There's no sources that this film is being written, being produced or even that this is the title. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 20:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 21:30, 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 speedy deleted under G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page. PhilKnight (talk) 10:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly (musician)

may not meet WP:N KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 20:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article was pulled out of Liam Kyle Sullivan, I do not think this subject needs its own article, and the content should be returned to that page. Wronkiew (talk) 20:42, 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 23:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment would a redirect help in this matter? BigDunc^Talk 18:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Turning it into a redirect is a much better idea. This page doesn't need to be deleted after all. Wronkiew (talk) 16:12, 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. PhilKnight (talk) 18:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen F.C.

Not very notable Scottish football club, playing in a not notable league. All references are to club's own website except one to another club in the same league's, and one to a local newspaper (which only mentions them in a fixture list). пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 20:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 20:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a long way from achieving any notability, either by playing level, or by coverage in reliable sources. - fchd (talk) 20:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can welfare association teams ever be notable by playing sport? Nfitz (talk) 21:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes - that's how Whitehill Welfare F.C. started. Cullen isn't though, so delete. Grutness...wha? 02:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 11:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:ORG. TerriersFan (talk) 21:54, 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 a2, author has been asked to post in English. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bay of Loures

Material not in English KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 20:27, 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) 20:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Grimsley

Delete nn person. Unreferenced, no GHITS, possible WP:HOAX Mayalld (talk) 20:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

not hoax, please allow two day grace to complete article to Wikipedia standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Madevery (talk • contribs) 20:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment IMDB seems to have overlooked his involvement in the film. Odd given that he won an award for it. Mayalld (talk) 20:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete G3 (already tagged). An Oscar Telivardo? For Pan's Labyrinth? Please. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 20:27, 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 keep. Wizardman 01:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

René Reinumägi

This is an unsourced WP:BLP, some claims are made to international awards but I cannot reliably confirm them. RFerreira (talk) 19:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Awards are confirmed here. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but it should be pimped with wiki-links and sources Stijndon (talk) 18:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Person is notable, regardless of the current (sub-par) state of the article. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:25, 13 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 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fábio Pereira da Silva. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 21:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rafael Aparecido da Silva

Unknown number of appearances for Fluminense (if any). He is currently listed in MUFC Reserves.

He fails WP Footy notability, as friendly matches do not count. Also, does not pass WP:ATHLETE. – LATICS talk 19:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. – LATICS talk 19:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 19:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails notability at WP:ATHLETE. --Jimbo^[online] 20:43, 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 as he fails WP:ATHLETE. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 23:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zeyn Alabidyn S-Latef

Player fails notability at WP:ATHLETE having never played in a fully-professional league/competition Hubschrauber729 (talk) 19:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. --Jimbo^[online] 20:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no indication that he will play anytime soon. Nfitz (talk) 22:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - he's miles off the first team. Don't know why someone added him in. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 10:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 11:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. – LATICS talk 04:03, 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 01:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wilderness folk

non-notable neologism. Seems to only be used by one person in this context after a quick google trawl. Ged UK (talk) 19:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the only reference to this style of music is on the term originator's MySpace page. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 19:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-The term "wilderness folk" is important as per the fact that it is a sub-genre of folk. There are several other bands using the "wilderness folk" tag as well. As an artist I feel this information should be available for when someone hears the term and is looking for a definition —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cweecwee13 (talk • contribs) 12:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, please! Every band is the only band in the world that plays its own unique sub-genre. We wouldn't include a page on True Nekro Post-Funeral Doom Metal either, so to speak. While wikipedia seems like the right place to get info like this, it's just not notable enough. Stijndon (talk) 18:59, 12 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 without prejudice to recreation once he starts playing in the top league. PhilKnight (talk) 18:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Rich

The admin who declined speedy A7 on this one stated that it was a borderline case. Aussie Rules footballer who sounds promising, but he is not there yet. The WAFL is the equivalent of AAA baseball in the US.

Delete without prejudice against recreation once he starts playing in the top league. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 19:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. While possibly notable in the future, he does not yet have notability, which is required. Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 13:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:28, 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. It's been a week with no new sourcing, and the supplied sources are iffy. There isn't a strong consensus to delete, but without the one event of the RAVEN controversy, it would be speedied as promotional.

BRIO (publishing company)

Article about a company called BRIO publishing. Even after reading it several times i still cannot judge if this is a good, or a bad article. I am not fully assured that the article subject is notable, and the article has a self-published advertorial feeling. At the same time the referencing seems in order, and the article seems to obey WP:NPOV guidelines more or less. Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 19:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral par being the nominator Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 19:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral needs sourcing, suggest move to BRIO (publishing company). 136.181.195.10 (talk) 20:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move to BRIO (publishing company) as suggested. And tag the article for cleanup and lack of reliable sources. While the article is fairly neutral, the title is blatantly promotional. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 20:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like establishing notability might be difficult here - the first reference cited is a video clip purportedly aired on an Oxygen show, but its tone is so staggeringly promotional I can't believe it was editorially independent. The second is a press release, the third appears to be a blog post of unknown reliability. A Google search finds a smattering of local news stories which might be worth exploring. Having said all that, I'm prepared to give the article a chance since it was only created two hours ago. Gr1st (talk) 21:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, the page has been moved to a neutral title. Now what about the redirect created by the page move? RfD or speedy? -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 22:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Borderline case - "BRIO - Publishing Made Simple" might count as a misnomer as at WP:CSD#Redirects. Gr1st (talk) 23:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged it as a speedy. Its a promotional title so i doubt it needs to go the long way around. Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 23:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Toddst1 (talk) 23:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep well sourced and appears to be notable Frank Anchor ^{Talk to me} 04:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - References deal more with RAVEN magazine than this company. Article is mostly advertising, with little to indicate how it is notable. TN‑X-Man 12:45, 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 Nomination withdrawn. See below. Non-admin closing. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 23:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peebles Old Parish Church

An article on a non-notable Scottish church. There is nothing significant about this church that would make it more notable than the billions of other churches in the world. Tavix (talk) 18:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC) Tavix (talk) 18:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N. Google search shows little notability. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 19:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All my articles shall not be deleted. Tharnton345 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a reason. Also, please don't remove AFD tags when an article is still under discussion. Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 19:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Tharnton345, Wikipedia articles, even ones you created, are not yours. Please read WP:OWN. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 20:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was opened in 1887 at a cost of £9, 500. Tharnton345 (talk) 19:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Borderline case. Mentioned in tourism sites. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 19:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How about adding it to the main page on the city, at least until there is enough content for a separate page? --Mr. Vernon (talk) 20:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - interesting historical church and sufficient sources to meet WP:N, for example [4], [5], in addition to what may be found locally such as the book here. TerriersFan (talk) 20:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm landing on Keep for this one, but it certainly could use some expansion. It appears to have historic significance as a landmark.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - OK; I have sourced up and expanded the page. TerriersFan (talk) 21:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw. I guess I should have dug a little deeper for sources. Thanks. Tavix (talk) 23:19, 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. Wizardman 15:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CubeLinux

Unreleased linux distro with little to no external media coverage. ff m 18:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only in alpha or beta stage. Mentioned only in forums and Wikipedia mirrors. The associated website appears to have been down for quite some time. It is not apparent whether it's still being developed. Notability can not be established. THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 03:25, 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 as he fails WP:ATHLETE. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 23:18, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Riley (football)

This article fails WP:BIO and WP:ATHLETE. Martin Riley has never competed in a fully professional league, nor has he played a first-team game for a professional club. He is currently on a short-term contract with a club who do not play in a professional league. The article gives no reason to suggest that he may be notable in a manner that conforms to established policy. Rje (talk) 18:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:Athlete and the reporting is standard recording by the media of routine events. TerriersFan (talk) 19:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - Martin plays for Kidderminster Harriers who are a professional full time club. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kewstu (talk • contribs) 19:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly: he has yet to play a game for the club. Secondly: WP:ATHLETE refers to the league being fully professional, which the Conference National isn't - as is stated in the intro of the article. Even if he were to play for the club he still wouldn't meet our criteria for notability. Rje (talk) 19:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Angelo (talk) 07:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. – Pee Jay 07:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 11:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. --Jimbo^[online] 13:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Pile-on vote. – LATICS talk 03:58, 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) 18:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre Richard Cadeau

Autobiography; no notability shown. Fails WP:BLP. triwbe (talk) 18:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —triwbe (talk) 18:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP. Not even close. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 19:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, and per my initial PROD rationale. -- role^player 23:08, 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.

Albion (Fable)

The result was

I am simply going to use this page as an redirect to redirect it into Fable. If anyone has a problem with this, please contact me o my talkpage. Thanks. Gears of War 2 19:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per in-world. The article has no cites nor any references. The article is unverifiable and therefore meets the criteria for deletion. This article should either be deleted or at least merge it into Fable. Gears of War 2 18:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 18:31, 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. Wizardman 21:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revolte

The article doesn't assert notability, and the only reference is a small mention in a timeline of Duval. Google returns little promising hits. Leonard^(Bloom) 18:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Revolt. Notability not apparent from article. Sandstein 17:22, 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: were no valid CSD criteria, but there's snow in August. TravellingCari 02:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moving tips

Fails because Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, or textbook. triwbe (talk) 18:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-encyclopedic and I don't see any way this can be salvaged into something keepable or anything that would ever link to it. Drunken Pirate (talk) 18:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsalvageable how-to. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -WP:SNOW ???? --triwbe (talk) 19:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Snowy Delete - article title makes it obvious it can only be a 'how-to' -Hunting dog (talk) 19:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a how-to guide Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 19:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this how-to guide. Cliff smith ^talk 20:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's simply a how-to. jj137 (talk) 21:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and everyone else above. --Russ (talk) 21:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Annoying that this has to turn into an AFD that can have no other result then remove. It would have been easier to just snowball CSD it like the previous time it was posted. Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 21:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I agree, but I do not see any CSD criteria that would cover it without warping the rules. --triwbe (talk) 04:52, 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 No Consensus defaulting to keep, disagreement here on whether this merits an article or not but discussion was leaning towards keep after evidence was found of it charting. Davewild (talk) 21:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Runaway (Linkin Park song)

This track is non-notable on its own -- I redirected it to the album title but that was reverted by another editor. Should be deleted or consensus reached as to redirect. ukexpat (talk) 17:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable non-single. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 17:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 17:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSIC criteria for songs. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It definitely does not fail WP:MUSIC, TPH. "Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts" are indicated as having sufficient notability. ^S._D.Jameson 03:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 17:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. ~~As the major contributor to this stub, I wanted to state here that I have no real problem with a deletion and redirect.~~ I think, though, that this stub, and how quickly it was tagged for speedy deletion (not by the nominator, but by a different user), points to some incredible deficiencies currently present in NPP. It seems like it's a race of sorts to see who can get the new pages tagged for speedy. And it's not just the taggers that have the issues, sometimes it's the deleting administrators as well. I fully grasp that we have a ton of articles on very marginably notable topics on the project. I have tagged my fair share of newpages for deletion. But something must be done when pages that are clearly not "nonsense" are being tagged (and even sometimes deleted, though not in this case) as such. S. Dean Jameson 18:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I couldn't agree more with you Dean. But I really don't think much can be done and that's the problem. Tavix (talk) 19:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found a source here that lists Runaway as a charting "single" (hit ctrl + F if you can't find it). I am not sure if that is quite a reason to keep because Linkin Park never actually released the song as a single, but it did chart on Billboard. Tavix (talk) 19:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge, if the song has "charted", according to Tavix's link, then it explicitly doesn't "Fail WP:MUSIC", which says Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. No reason to delete. If it can't be expanded a bit more, I see no problem with merging, per the same guideline, although the precedence seems to be towards keeping notable songs as standalone articles. Keeper ǀ 76 19:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It does not fail WP:MUSIC because it has charted, and it was not released as a single. There are many single articles that only say that the song was released as a single, but the article is kept anyway. See "Piss Up a Rope." Tezkag72 (talk) 21:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Keeper and Tez, as well as the fact that it does appear to have achieved some real notability in its own right, apart from the album itself. S. Dean Jameson 21:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - none of the references in the article speak to the notability of this track as opposed to that of the album or the band. – ukexpat (talk) 01:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean to sound glib her, but what song (other than some obvious ones) have notability apart from the "album or band"? If that's the standard, there would be a ton less articles on singles. S. Dean Jameson 01:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Does anyone own the album Hybrid Theory? I have Meteora and Minutes to Midnight and it has a description of the history of each song listed in the liner notes of both of those albums. If anyone has Hybrid Theory it probably has info in that too. Thanks. Tezkag72 (talk) 23:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 09:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~. Delete (see below). While it may not fail WP:MUSIC there's little to support a full article and what little [sourced] information there is can be merged into the album article. Also, the article was previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/With You (Linkin Park song) Rehevkor ✉ 23:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure exactly what you mean when you claim it's been deleted before. The link you provided is for a different song. And the reasoning you use in your merge recommendation could be used to merge nearly all of the current song articles. ^S._D.Jameson 02:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Read the link? The deletion was for multiple articles. And so what if it applies to all articles? They're nothing to do with this discussion. Actually, now I make a closer look, there is no reliable sourced information not already in the album article. Changing my "vote". Rehevkor ✉ 02:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to get angry. My point was that your link that you claim proves this article has been deleted before proves no such thing. I also was making the point that according to your reasoning, nearly every article on a specific song could be deleted. Nearly any time a song is mentioned in reliable sources, it will be in conjunction with the album from which it comes. Thus your reasoning doesn't hold, especially now that you've strengthened your opposition to the existence of this article to "delete" from "merge." The song is noted in several reliable sources. There's simply no reason to delete this article. ^S._D.Jameson 02:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- And for the record, having been deleted before, over a year ago, with very little discussion has no bearing on this discussion. ^S._D.Jameson 02:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Angry? :P I'm curious as to why you think I'm angry. But yeah. It being previously deleted through AfD is relevant here as the previous discussion and reasons to help shed light on any current discussion, if you disagree then disregard it (also WP:CSD#G4 could be taken into account, which as far as I'm aware doesn't have a time limit). As for other articles, I stand by my previous opinion that an article on this subject is totally unnecessary. That's all there is to it really. Rehevkor ✉ 03:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seemed, from the way you structured the note, that you were a bit angry. Sorry for the misapprehension on my part. As for your contention that a previous deletion matters in this discussion, that's simply wrong. The article, as it was structured before, was most likely completely different than this one. It now has five separate, very reliable sources. Deleting this article would not help the project in any way. ^S._D.Jameson 03:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, the only reason I mentioned it was that previous deletions are usually mentioned at the start of the nomination, in this case the previous AfD was part of a separate article. Users making their opinion known will take it on its own merits, if any, let them make up their own minds. You're welcome to your opinion on that, but don't expect me to agree with it. Whether or not a deletion "helps" a project should have no bearing this. Rehevkor ✉ 03:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everything we do should "help" the project. This deletion just doesn't do that. The article is written in an encyclopedic manner, well-referenced, and nearly start class already. There's just no reason at all to delete it, and the "reasons" proposed thus far simply don't pass muster. ^S._D.Jameson 03:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree! Funny that, isn't it? Rehevkor ✉ 03:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{undent}You're of course free to "disagree." But it doesn't fail WP:MUSIC, it doesn't fail WP:NOTE, it doesn't fail WP:RS, so I'm not certain how to make any sense of your recommendation to delete. And do you "disagree" that everything we do here should help the project in some way? ^S._D.Jameson 03:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say it failed any policy, or guide lines. I'm saying the article is unnecessary, it's as simple as that. Care to explain why Wikipedia's AfD should help a project at all? AfD is independent. Rehevkor ✉ 03:58, 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. Sandstein 16:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exploding warships

The page is an un-sourced mash of original research and speculation. It's likely unsalvageable, and should be deleted. Parsecboy (talk) 16:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Also a touch of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Many many warships since the dawn of gunpowder have exploded. The precise reasons range from a mistaken match lit in the gunpowder magazine to a misfired homing torpedo. RayAYang (talk) 17:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Jammy (talk) 17:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 17:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Relevant Wikiprojects have been notified of this discussion 1, 2. Parsecboy (talk) 17:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Aside from the title, which might more accurately be 'List of some capital ships that suffered magazine explosions, which I think is due to faulty British-made cordite', the article itself admits, 'wideranging investigations...came up with different explanations for the incidents' . This is not the place for someone to publish their Original Research, that all these losses were due to British made cordite. Benea (talk) 23:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I tried to see how this might be saved but its been there almost two years without much direction and there's no real way to save anything on here. Drop the bomb. --Brad (talk) 23:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment the entry might be a good Redirect to Hellburners or Fire ship as they are set afire or set to explode on purpose.--Lenticel ^(talk) 23:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with above comment on redirect. This "article" is one long unreferenced litany of twaddle. --Harlsbottom (talk | library | book reviews) 03:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article is a combination of OR and an indiscriminate collection of information given the wide range of factors which caused the different ships to 'explode'. Nick Dowling (talk) 11:20, 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. Approve of rename as well, less POV. Keeper ǀ 76 21:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Edwards paternity allegations

This article was allegedly created as a content and POV fork of John Edwards, related to a recent controversy in which it has been claimed that he fathered a love child. The article was speedily deleted, but related discussion here seems to be against the idea of the speedy deletion; I myself agree, especially (as was noted in the ANI discussion) because a speedy tag was removed before the article was speedied. Personally, I believe that the article is giving undue weight to the subject, and therefore deserves deletion; I have recreated it just now simply because I believe it deserves a discussion here at AFD. Nyttend (talk) 15:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Note: the said article has been renamed to John Edwards extramarital affair) Baccyak4H (Yak!) 20:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP NOT journalism, BLP-attack, POV fork because the original content placed in the Edwards article was removed per COATRACK. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, KC - could you cite an example of POV in the article, or of a BLP attack? Kelly ^hi! 15:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, give me a few minutes pls, I want to try to be clear. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC) EDITED to add will be a little longer, apologies, I will be away from the computer for a bit. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Please assume good faith on the part of the author. This article was created because of claims of WP:UNDUE, not to generate a POV fork nor to create a COATRACK. Let's please argue the merits of the material rather than make assertions regarding motives. Ronnotel (talk) 15:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am assuming good faith on the part of the author. Her intentions (and hard work) and not in dispute - the result (ie; the article) is in dispute. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I will be back a little later to comment more fully, but in the meantime I ask commenters to read the comments at WP:ANI here, particularly the ones at the end by Noroton, DGG, and GRBerry. The article is not intended to be a fork, but one covering the media controversy. Kelly ^hi! 15:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete = POV fork, vandalism/trolling trap, undue weight to a monor event, attack bio, Wikipedia is not a news source, lack of decent sources... O the list goes on. Bearian (talk) 15:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, Bearian - do you have any examples? I'm particularly unsure of the "lack of decent sources" claim, I tried hard to provide a lot of high-quality sources. Kelly ^hi! 16:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Responding to each policy objection:
  - POV fork -- If it would be a WP:COATRACK problem to be included in the John Edwards article, it can't simultaneously be a POV fork. The media coverage itself is an important element of this article (from what we know at present, I think it should be the major focus). You can't fit that in the John Edwards article and this is very obviously encyclopedic content which deserves to be in Wikipedia.
  - vandalism/trolling trap -- You can say that about all of our articles, and we certainly have plenty on controversial subjects. (This is actually not a policy objection, but it's a legitimate concern to bring up.)
  - undue weight to a monor event -- Others have brought this up, too. WP:UNDUE deals only with presenting "aspects" or "points of view" within an article. So UNDUE can't be a deletion issue, only an editing issue.
  - attack bio -- I think this is the strongest objection. The news organizations that have covered this and that are cited in the article are, overwhelmingly, not attacking Edwards, and the article presents information from them in a WP:NPOV way. John Edwards is a WP:WELLKNOWN person. This article was written after extensive discussions on the Talk:John Edwards page about whether it was proper to include the allegation in Wikipedia, and the consensus of a large number of editors was to include it (see Talk:John Edwards#Request for comments on alternatives). The additional details in this article don't seem to make our coverage of the allegation any more of a potential attack than that sentence would be. I think this is the strongest objection because there's a case to be made that it doesn't meet WP:WELLKNOWN, which insists on reliable sources. The National Enquirer (NE) typically isn't considered an RS. On the other hand, NE has actually been a reliable source in the past, and the recent hotel incident seems to be what put this over the top (the paternity allegation had been first reported by NE quite a while ago). The many news organizations that have reported on the NE report, at some point, disolved reliable sourcing objections, especially when we look at news media coverage as part of the subject. Since this is a bit complicated and nothing in the language of WP:BLP is absolutely decisive here, look at the spirit. The spirit of WP:BLP involves trying not to harm a subject (although ~~unless~~ more important considerations may take precedence, as with WP:WELLKNOWN), not putting Wikipedia into legal liability and not harming the reputation of Wikipedia. The last two simply don't apply, and the first depends on how we cover this, not whether we do.
  - Wikipedia is not a news source -- Wikipedia covers things like this, as many, many AfDs have shown. Looking at the media coverage of a situation like this is useful when the next one comes up, just as looking at the information Wikipedia has on similar, past situations is helpful in understanding this one, so this is not an article of only passing interest, which we already know by now becuse of the media-coverage information that has already come up (I go into this in more detail at the 22:08, 5 August post, below).
  - lack of decent sources -- The footnotes disagree with you. They include the most "decent" news-organization sources that exist (also see "attack bio" item above).

-- Noroton (talk) 01:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An important story about a very prominant politician. More reasons why this is news can be found here: http://www.slate.com/id/2196758/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.136.25.72 (talk) 16:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This previous comment supports the idea of coverage of this topic in Wikinews. I point out however, that this is Wikipedia, and in itself this argument has no weight towards the inclusion of the article here. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - obviously, as the author, I'm saying keep. I think people have got it into their heads that this article is somehow trying to say the allegations are true. The article in no way presents the allegations as fact. (sorry for the bolding, I just wanted to make that clear for people who are saying "attack"). Some reasoning follows:

The article was written in response to concerns at the John Edwards article that to include details about media coverage of the controversy was a WP:COATRACK problem. The article is intended to discuss the allegations themselves, and an important controversy in journalism that has received/is receiving widespread coverage. A similar article to this would be John McCain lobbyist controversy, February 2008.
Yes, there are blog references, but they are only intended to apply to a discussion of blog coverage of the allegations (similar situations exist at Killian documents or Jamil Hussein controversy). Any controversial facts are referenced to the mainstream press - please look at the sources. Where less-than-stellar sources are used (i.e. the Enquirer or blogs), it is only to reference claims made or opinions given by those sources in the context of discussing the media coverage of the event.
If there are concerns about undue weight or neutral point of view, could someone please be specific about those? I honestly have worked very hard to comply with all policies and have looked at all of the similar articles I could find to ensure I was meeting Wikipedia guidelines and community norms.
There are two ways for Wikipedia to handle our coverage of this type of situation/controversial event - either close our eyes to the event, while numerous POV-pushers show up here to stir up drama about it on- and off-wiki, or to get ahead of the power curve, write a neutral, reliably sourced article about the event, and defend it against POV-pushers. I have no doubt the information will wind up in the encyclopedia in some form; obviously I think it's better if responsible editors control the form that information will take. I am trying to get in front of the issue and would appreciate any help or contructive feedback that anyone wishes to provide.

With respect to all - Kelly ^hi! 16:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I commend the main writer for the effort to document sources and then write quite an extensive article with neutral (at least at a sentence by sentence level) tone, the article is in some sense a victim of its own success in that it is an extraordinarily long article on what is essentially gossip and discussion of said gossip. As such its very size alone violates WP:UNDUE, thus reducing the article to a POV fork of the main subject. Per this and additionally BLP considerations, it is, at least, imperative for this material to be greatly condensed and most if not all of the material sourced only to blogs not up to RS standards for BLP articles removed. Some could argue then this is only an editorial issue. However, the main article covers this issue in a plausibly reasonable way already. I would argue then that it still is a fork; even if neutral and well sourced it would then be redundant. Further, such an article would be intrinsically difficult to maintain (someone might keep adding "at his two public appearances today, Edwards refused again to discuss the allegations"; even if well sourced, this is a clear disservice to the project). I thus propose the project is clearly best served by ~~deleting~~ (updated below Baccyak4H (Yak!) 15:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)) this article (with the caveat mentioned below) and any editorial effort put into updating in a prudent way the content in the Edwards article regarding the topic. I note that this article's main author was one of the main forces to get good, balanced coverage of this topic into the main Edwards article. Her efforts, if she desires, towards my suggestion would be much appreciated as the main article's talk is starting to percolate more fervently with editors misinformed (at best) about our policies.[reply]
Update As events have unfolded as told by reliable sources, it is no longer obvious that a balanced and properly weighted summary of the topic can be summarized in the main John Edwards article while still doing justice to what can be adequately sourced. I feel it still can, but I am no longer convinced that the article should be deleted per NPOV, BLP and other policy grounds, with the obvious caveat that the current article is still a de facto mouthpiece for un-BLP tabloid reporting, so would still need immense cleanup, in any case. There still would be great merit in either deleting this article and refining the main one, or starting this article from scratch (which might make it easier to write encyclopedically). So while I believe the project is best served by its deletion, I am not convinced that it it required by policy (although it may still be). With regards to this discussion, my own position is now neutral, and I do hope the points I have raised lead to further discussion and project improvement. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 15:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update 2 Per ABC News coverage pointed out here, any balanced coverage consistent with reliable sources in John Edwards would end up being undue weight. This article needs keeping. My following comments were prescient. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment/caveat to the closer: it is very possible that during the running of this AfD, reliable sources will greatly increase the encyclopedic nature of this article's topic, to the point of early comments becoming out of date. While that is always the case, when tiptoing close to the line between Wikipedia and Wikinews it is all the more important to keep in mind. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In regards to article length, the model I used was John McCain lobbyist controversy, February 2008 - I think this article is actually somewhat shorter. Is the McCain article too long? I really don't know. That said, this article could probably use some condensing, particularly in the blog/pundit coverage paragraph - I don't read many blogs and am not a good judge of their notability...I used Wikipedia articles to get a sense for that. Feedback on my editorial judgment welcome. :) Kelly ^hi! 16:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article documents a ongoing controversy of importance to the political career of a major public figure; this controversy has received significant coverage in reliable sources. The article is written in a straightforward and relatively unbiased fashion; a content fork in order to expand in detail on a substantive topic is legitimate. There may be too much narration and not enough reflection, but that is a fault of style, not of substance, and certainly not a reason for deletion. Quibbling with BLP issues on particular points of the article are a reason to edit it, not delete it. At this point, the Edwards controversy has received at least as prominent a degree of coverage as the McCain lobbyist controversy, and deserves an article of its own. RayAYang (talk) 17:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The story is pertinent to the Vice Presidential selection process for the Democratic party. Further, the incident is demonstrating relevant differences between traditional media coverage and new media coverage of an important public figure. Lockesteps (talk) 17:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)Lockesteps[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 17:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 17:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a news source and not a courtroom. Reporting on this only serves to boost the Enquirer's circulation. None of the Enquirer's allegations have been corroborated by any reputable news source and this article is a biased, weighted, POV coatrack. Non-related events and facts are strung together in a manner designed to implicate and cause harm. Until there is any corroboration, proof, statement, or fact then there is nothing to report. Macduff (talk) 17:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The sources listed in the article specify corraboration and reporting by reputable news sources. Can you cite an example of bias in the article? I would be happy to fix it. Kelly ^hi! 17:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I won't speak for the OP, but there is a whole section of material much of which is from the National Enquirer. That is not a good thing in an article like this (indeed any article, but especially this). Where reliable sources discuss the allegations, it might be OK to use content from those sources, even to the point of them reporting that the Enquirer said this or that. But it needs to be another reliable source doing so, not the Enquirer itself. The same for blogs: for an article like this, we cannot use most blogs as sources, even for verification of what they themselves said (although in that case only, there may be somewhat more latitude to use them; and many not even for that). A reliable source's coverage of what's happening in blogs might or might not be reasonable, subject to editorial discretion. But to have large swaths of the article devoted to allegations and/or commentary sourced to blogs and unreliable sources is simply a Bad Thing: it is a recipe for bias if only because it provides a mouthpiece for an unreliable source, even if that source's content was accurately transcribed. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 18:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm - in most cases, the fact that the Enquirer published something is also mentioned in the mainstream news, particularly the longer pieces by The Times, Fox News, McClatchy Newspapers, or WCNC-TV, and can possibly be resourced. But are you saying it's unacceptable to source a sentence in the article that says "The Daily Newspaper published this claim" with a link to the Daily Newspaper article itself? That seems odd, I have never heard that interpretation. I do understand that a lot of people have an almost visceral reaction to seeing a National Enquirer link in a Wikipedia article, but they are only ever used in this article to source the paper made a particular claim, not for any assertions of fact. The context is one of history of media coverage of the allegations, not the accuracy of the allegations themselves, which is still a question. Kelly ^hi! 19:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In a BLP-relevant article, if there is any remotely reasonable way of avoiding sourcing an unreliable claim to its (unreliable) source, yes it shouldn't be done. If such content belongs at all in such an article, it will be necessarily (but not sufficiently) because a reliable source reported on that very content. If those other (more reliable) sources that you mention (for instance) report on content, then that reporting becomes reasonable, again subject to editorial discretion (read: NPOV and its children; UNDUE etc). But at that point, linking to the original NE source does nothing to enhance the article. In some cases it might be plausible to add such a link to the External Links section, but in a case like this that should be done with extreme care. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your point, though I guess we have to agree to disagree on the specifics. I think your policy makes sense for a biography, but not for the history of a media story. But the question is probably better discussed on the article talk page, as opposed to here. Kelly ^hi! 19:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK . Kudos to your levelheadednesss in this and related discussions. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With GRBerry's kind permission, I am quoting his earlier post to WP:ANI below:

A little thought experiment - let us pretend that we are looking back from 25 years later and everyone agrees that this marked the end of Edward's political career. How much material would belong in the John Edwards article in those circumstances? Probably no more than one or two paragraphs, because what he actually did during his career would need to be covered also, and we wouldn't want to unbalance the main biography. Additional coverage about the mess would belong in a sub article. This projection is comparable to how the Lewinsky scandal is handled in Bill Clinton. If no matter how important this becomes, we wouldn't put significantly more in John Edwards than was already there when Kelly wrote this page, than the issues we need to handle definitely do not include it being a POV fork. As one of the admins who is monitoring John Edwards (and the latest to use my tools on the main biography), I'm reasonably well aware of the consensus there (which continues to shift to fine tune the paragraph as more sources become available - just as it should). I'm also highly aware that new editors will probably be back in a couple days (when the current protection period ends) trying to get more material added. Kelly was attempting to get ahead of that forthcoming problem and wrote an article that if it had a POV problem was only going to far towards "this story matters". (I.e., it was neither an attack page nor unsourced, though bits might have needed to be edited to be more succinct.) Kelly definitely does not deserve any opprobium for his/her writing this article.

As to whether or not now is the time for this article, I've long been an occasional advocate for taking WP:NOT#NEWS a lot more seriously than we do. (I think if someone were to propose adding that to the policy now the community would reject it, because the evidence is that the community largely ignores it and writes articles whenever a major news story occurs.) So I'd be happier if we now had a Wikinews article, and waited a while before we started a Wikipedia article, possibly just keeping a soft-redirect to wikinews at a reasonable title. Assuming this doesn't linger on - and it might, depending on whether or not any of the mainstream news sources decided to do investigative journalism the way they did years ago and what such hypothetical investigations might find - then in a few months we'll be able to have better encyclopedic perspective. I refuse to predict whether the main story will be about how the media and blogosphere handled this, the substance of the allegations, or something else we have yet to identify. And until we know the main storyline, we are just to close to the event to know how to handle it. So my preferred outcome would be to have a wikinews article instead, and adopt a temporary policy of just waiting a few months here. But if this comes to DRV for a straight up/down decision, I'll have to opine based on those two options. GRBerry 02:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

End quote... Kelly ^hi! 17:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep—So, while considering what to say about this I wondered how similar past situations have been handled by WP and wandered over to Gary Hart. The Donna Rice "situation" gets a 4 paragraph subsection. I had forgotten that the Hart/Rice photos were also published by the Enquirer, an uncanny resemblance to the current situation. I think that this topic deserves coverage in Wikipedia, but I personally think that it should be included in the main Edwards article, not in its own article. However, since the consensus of editors there seems to be to exclude any mention of this until it is picked up by the likes of the Miami Herald, I suppose my only possible reaction is to keep it, though I really wish it could be merged back in to the Edwards article, hence my "weak"ness. Livitup (talk) 19:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the consensus on the Edwards article is (and has been for a few days now) to have a paragraph on the topic. So in some sense the merge you wish for already exists. I would imagine this might further weaken your keep rationale, but allow you to elaborate as you see fit. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a minor correction - the only consensus there is to have a couple of sentences on the allegations' impact on his VP changes. There is a consensus against including any other details of the controversy. Kelly ^hi! 21:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Although Wikipedia is not a news source, the initial allegations were made almost a year ago. How much time needs to pass before Wikipedia covers it? Given the quality of the article (notice how few specific complaints about it are made above?), the article should be kept. I also agree with the reasoning of RayAYang above. Although the article is by no means perfect, that is a reason for editing, not deletion. It also seems to be the clear (and reasonable) consensus at John Edwards that very little space there should be devoted to this topic. That's fine but also another reason why a separate article is needed. David.Kane (talk) 19:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While some of the sourcing in this article is subpar, a lot of the sources are reliable. The topic is, therefore, clearly notable and belongs in this encyclopedia. There is currently enough content on this subject to justify its own article, so "keep" is preferable to "merge/redirect to John Edwards". Ice Cold Beer (talk) 19:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete blp this is not a 'fact' nor 'knowledge' it is media speculation still about a living person. --Buridan (talk) 20:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable, decent sources, any problems with the article can be fixed by contructive editing. Arkon (talk) 21:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep although at this point, when the allegation itself has shaky sourcing to the National Enquirer (and only sourcing of part of the allegation to Fox News), the focus should be on the overall media coverage, with the allegation as background (and therefore worth giving fewer details per WP:UNDUE). But the shape of the article is not an AfD decision: AfD is about whether there is a subject we can know is worth an article. There is just no way that the subject of the tortured, complex media coverage of this allegation is not a worthwhile subject for this encyclopedia. I'm not just talking about the NE and Fox coverage, but even the coverage of decisions by news organizations not to cover the allegations. There are plenty of sources that have discussed these decisions. Note the long section on media coverage at John McCain lobbyist controversy, February 2008. That section is encyclopedicly useful to readers interested in the media coverage of this issue. Above (timestamp 19:29), User:Livitup used the "Donna Rice affair" section of the Gary Hart article to see how we cover that. He found information worth considering in thinking about the media coverage here. In other words, Livitup used the encyclopedia as an encyclopedia and that editor could do so because we covered the subject as an encyclopedia of our size should. This is what we do.

And you can't have an article on the media coverage if you don't say what the coverage is about. You also can't fit an article (or even a long section) on the media coverage into the overall John Edwards article.

Editors have already decided by consensus at John Edwards that the allegation itself is OK to mention essentially because there's enough media coverage surrounding the Enquirer's stories. That decision got the camel's nose in the tent and when you let the nose in, you can't stop the rest of the animal from coming in -- this article is the whole camel. This is -- and should be -- an uncomfortable, extremely sensitive subject. Edwards has a wife and children, and, as our article says, at least one newspaper columnist thinks Wikipedia coverage itself may have an effect on news organizations decisions to give this more publicity. Edwards is also a WP:WELLKNOWN person under consideration for vice president or possibly a cabinet position if Obama wins, and that also tends to make this subject encyclopedic because it affects those hiring decisions. It's worth noting Wikipedia's standard practice of having articles on controversies, political and not: see Category:Controversies and Category:Political controversies (and including what are usually referred to as "scandals" and "affairs" -- see Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Scandal, affair)-- Noroton (talk) 22:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I was on the fence about this. I can certainly support removal of many of the blog refs. However Noroton's arguments about the need for encyclopedic material push me into the Keep camp. Ronnotel (talk) 22:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. cf John McCain lobbyist controversy, February 2008,Eliot Spitzer prostitution scandal, Mark Foley scandal, ad nauseum. It's interesting that an attempt to redirect Rielle Hunter to this article was rejected, yet Vicki Iseman still has an article about her, along with the mentions in John McCain lobbyist controversy, February 2008, John McCain presidential campaign, 2008, and John Weaver (political consultant). Horologium (talk) 23:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The McCain Lobbyist controversy, the Monica Lewinsky scandal, and the Gary Hart/Monkey Business scandal were all reported and confirmed in reputable news sources. The John Edwards paternity allegation has only been reported in the National Enquirer, a non-reputable source. I don't think a fair comparison can be made. Macduff (talk) 23:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, if you take a look at the sources, the allegations have been reported on by numerous mainstream sources, including The Times, Der Spiegel, McClatchy News, and multiple American major metropolitan newspapers, as well as Business Week and US News & World Report, among others. Kelly ^hi! 00:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This easily passes the notability test. These allegations have apparently derailed the political career of one of the most visible politicians of this decade. Prior to the allegations there was talk of Vice President or Attorney General. Now that the allegations have been aired by the mainstream media, talk has shifted to the death of his political career. 69.204.74.75 (talk) 01:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep To summarize what I said at AN/I referred to above, Quite independent of Edwards, the subject is an important controversy in journalism that we cannot avoid covering. Either as a possibly unique example of the prototypical US tabloid -- actually publishing against opposition something of national political importance or a spectacular example of how that journal's incompetent/biased journalism , was adopted not just by political opportunists, but the London Times, publishing on the authority of the Enquirer. We will have to cover this separately form our coverage of Edwards. I would leave Edward's name out of the title (as it reads, either he made allegations about someone's paternity or someone made allegations about his.) I think the version of the article is acceptable, describing what the E, the LA T, and the T have published, and the major blogs; some details of the accusations are necessary to set the context, because their (im)plausibility is a major part of the charges against the Enguirer et al. As for its role in his bio, we should wait and see. I'm not worried about harm--quite the opposite--there has been so much malicious nonsense published elsewhere that a sober article here would help decrease its effect. DGG (talk) 02:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on blog references - some of the blog sources I used were to bring balance to arguments from the "other side" in this dispute. A couple of examples that come to mind...the woman in question, and the claimed father, issued their denials to MyDD, not normally considered a reliable source. But I don't want to simply mention the allegations (which were reported by mainstream sources) without also mentioning the denials. Another instance is the LA Times blog "gag order" which was covered in the mainstream press - the LA Times editor in question responded and defended himself in a blog interview. Drafting this article has been a lesson to me on how the line is fraying between print and online journalism. But surely consensus on this can be found by editors of the article. Kelly ^hi! 03:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (or Merge). Normally I wouldn't like to keep an article like this, but reading through it and the references, it does pass the notability test - this story, and more importantly how the media has (or hasn't) covered it, has been the subject of attention from multiple reliable sources over an extended period of time. There are nonetheless BLP issues involved - in particular, I'm concerned that the length of the page may give undue weight to what is arguably a fairly minor event in Edwards' life. It would be better if it were cut down, and/or merged into the John Edwards page, similar to how the Donna Rice scandal is covered in Gary Hart. However, whether this is merged or not, I'm convinced that the subject of the article is notable and the content belongs on Wikipedia. Terraxos (talk) 03:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt until people come to their senses and more perspective is available: This is exactly the sort of circumstance that WP:BLP is designed to prevent. "Editors should avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to an encyclopedia article about the subject. If the original publication doesn't believe its own story, why should we?" The "mainstream" coverage is not presenting this material as true, and even if true, its relevance is entirely unclear at this early juncture. Being "conservative" in the BLP sense means waiting to find out whether this incident has any real impact on Edwards' career before expounding on it at length in a content fork. Not everything that's mentioned in a newspaper automatically belongs here. And if you're citing a list of other examples that have been handled differently, most of you should know better than to expect consistency from Wikipedia. See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. And to the liberal-bias bunch, I felt exactly the same way about Vicki Iseman's article and POV forks. Speaking of consistency, I hear a lot of complaining about Wikipedia's fast and loose way with BLP's, and yet some of the same voices are encouraging us to aggressively amplify a tabloid storyline in this particular case. Wikipedia is not a tabloid. Right now, this is a tabloid story. The third-party sources merely confirm the fact that yes, this is a tabloid story. MastCell ^Talk 05:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC) On the basis of the new sources cited by GRBerry, including an ABC News interview in which Edwards admits the affair, I'm withdrawing my delete !vote. My position was (is) simply that we need to wait for such reliable sources before running with these things. Now that condition is met, so I have no major objection to this article. I would prefer to see the effort expended on how to work the now-confirmed allegations in Edwards' main article rather than a content fork, but the existence of the content fork seems justified by new sources and revelations. MastCell ^Talk 19:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- this is a tabloid story There is a reason why this particular tabloid story and not others has received so much coverage in the rest of the press: It's more than a tabloid story even though it happens to have appeared first in a tabloid. It just isn't that cut and dried, and your comment ignores the reasons why. (a) The fact is that it becomes a serious matter when a potential vice presidential candidate and potential cabinet member gets into a mess like this; (b) it's only a mess now because 1. He was in that hotel at that time, as Fox News confirms; 2. He hasn't denied he was there when reporters have asked him; (c) it ain't hard to prove or disprove paternity these days; (d) if he did it and can't admit it, he can be blackmailed, probably not in this case, but, if he did have an affair, it shows poor judgment that could get him into similar situations -- a legitimate public concern; (d) The Enquirer has developed a track record for breaking a number of these stories, lending some credence to this; (e) you've ignored rather than addressed the main argument of the "Keep" side -- a significant part of the justification for this article is that it's subject is also the media coverage -- a solid subject for this encyclopedia. Even if the allegation is proven false, the media coverage is still a legitimate subject. Your objections were adequate for rejecting an article as the situation existed before the hotel incident, but not with the changed situation afterward. The fact that Wikipedia has a practice of creating and keeping these articles is an argument relying on outcomes (even though this kind of subject is not listed there) and an ongoing consensus (after many AfD discussions) that hasn't yet been reflected in policy, not WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. -- Noroton (talk) 07:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think we agree on many points. If Edwards does, in fact, have a child outside his marriage and an ongoing extramarital relationship, then that will undoubtedly impact his political career and be a relevant and notable aspect of his biography. I'm uncomfortable with including it based on the current level of sourcing and certainty, though. As far as I can tell, the Enquirer is the only source standing behind these allegations, and while they have occasionally been correct, their overall record of reliability is atrocious. The reliable-source coverage has been extremely cautious, and it's clear that reliable sources won't put their names and reps behind these allegations. That's a major red flag at present. If a reputable source turns up some corroboration, or is willing to go to print backing the story, or reports that paternity is established then most of my objections would disappear (maybe this has already happened, I haven't been following that closely). Right now I see us jumping in to amplify a lurid tabloid story from the Enquirer which reputable sources have clearly declined to endorse at present. I don't see the rush, and I definitely don't see the need for a content fork at present. MastCell ^Talk 19:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I just now saw your comment above, MastCell ~~Masthead~~ (Due to an editing error, a reference in this AfD to one User:MastCell was misidentified in a discussion comment. "The Daily Noroton" regrets the error.), but we've been thinking about some of the same things, so my long post with the seven points below (04:03, 8 Aug) answers some of it. As Kelly says above (19:18 5 Aug), citations to the National Enquirer are only ever used in this article to source the paper made a particular claim, not for any assertions of fact. The context is one of history of media coverage of the allegations, not the accuracy of the allegations themselves. When there is enough media coverage of even false allegations, and the allegations, true or false, start becoming historically notable at the level where Wikipedia typically starts creating articles and keeping them at AfD, then we're not dependent on the truth or even reliable sourcing of the original allegations themselves. I actually hate saying that. If Edwards were not WP:WELLKNOWN but instead a "non-public" figure (WP:NPF), then I'd be manning the barricades for a delete. If Edwards were not in the position he's in, in which he has been repeatedly asked to state whether or not he's the father and whether or not he was in the hotel and why, and in which he can disprove paternity, then we're in a situation where harm to him can't be our paramount concern. He's put himself forward as someone who wants to help run a government, previously as a candidate for president and vice president, currently as someone open to taking the VP nomination (a credible possibility until this situation) and possibly as a cabinet official. Then he made a public spectacle of himself in a hotel (it's been described as a Keystone Kops situation with the NE reporters in the hallways, stairwells, garage and bathroom of the hotel; this is the episode confirmed by Fox News). I'd rather turn away -- really -- but his private concerns are now our public concerns as the result of his (public) confrontation with the NE reporters and his (public) unresponsive responses to reporters' questions afterward. Covering the media response and the historical significance is more important than protecting him (or, unfortunately, his family) from this folly. (Note that the phrase "Do no harm" has been removed from WP:BLP lead section and replaced with the more moderate, The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgement.) You mention corroboration, but I don't see a mandate in any policy or guideline for corroboration. If there is one somewhere, I see a commonsense exception supported by consensus that in this particular case, the circumstances show that it's important enough to cover the WP:N ripples in the pond and mention that someone (uncorroborated) saw a stone fall in. If it was a falling tree or a meteor that caused the ripples, we have an article about the ripples either way. No matter how this turns out, coverage of the media response remains encyclopedically useful. This might be a good test for future cases: If the allegations were proven false, would it still be justifiable to have a Wikipedia article on this? In this case, there would. Noroton (talk) 18:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC) (((correction issued -- Noroton (talk) 19:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC))))'[reply]
      - Did you just call me "Masthead"? I demand an immediate retraction :) Yes, I see your point, though I'm not totally in agreement. I think the consensus that was worked out at Talk:John Edwards regarding brief mention of the allegations was reasonable - not necessarily what I personally would have done, but reasonable. I'm pretty strongly opposed to amplifying these allegations in a standalone article at present, though, which is the focus of this AfD. MastCell ^Talk 19:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Oops. Correction published. But everything else I said was correct <<crossing fingers>>. -- Noroton (talk) 19:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Well, I just looked to the bottom of the page and saw the ABC News source cited by GRBerry, in which Edwards admits the affair. With ABC News standing behind the story and an admission from Edwards, I no longer have any objection to the existence of this article, and I've withdrawn my delete !vote above. MastCell ^Talk 19:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Trying to circumvent WP:NPOV by the expedient of claiming to document the "allegations" is just bias by the backdoor. A sentence or two in John Edwards is the most that would be appropriate; the concept of undue weight still applies when a topic is spun out to a separate article - It's why we don't have George Bush incompetence allegations or Allegations that Barack Obama is unfit to be president. CIreland (talk) 05:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please, CIreland - I am not trying to "defame" anyone. Is there something in particular in the article that you can state is POV? I will happily work to address your concerns. We do have an article called Criticism of George W. Bush - I'm not sure about Barack Obama equivalents. Kelly ^hi! 05:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's an invalid comparison. We don't have an content fork entitled Allegations that George W. Bush has fallen off the wagon and is drinking again, even though the National Enquirer and its ilk routinely make that claim, and it has been repeated occasionally in more reputable sources. We should not have such an content fork, nor should we have this one. MastCell ^Talk 06:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm - I'm not aware of the George Bush drinking allegation spreading around the mainstream media like this allegation has - can you cite some examples? Kelly ^hi! 06:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One example: David Owen, formerly the British Foreign Secretary and currently Chancellor of the U. of Liverpool, wrote in his recent memoirs that Bush's "pretzel choking" incident was alcohol-related, citing physicians at Johns Hopkins who treated the President. The allegation was picked up in Vanity Fair, among other outlets. Of course, I spoke too soon and was insufficiently cynical about Wikipedia: we do have the article I alluded to. See George W. Bush substance abuse controversy. Needless to say, I think it should be deleted and the relevant aspects, if any, covered in one of the other Bush articles, but I'm giving up this particular ship. MastCell ^Talk 18:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My NPOV concerns are pretty simple - considering the totality of Wikipedia's coverage of John Edwards, we are giving undue weight to recent tabloid gossip. As for Criticism of George W. Bush and Movement to impeach George W. Bush they have issues of their own - related to the problem of articles dedicated to summarizing mainly negative commentary rather than the balance of commentary on a given topic. Do we give undue weight to negative commentary of George Bush? Absolutely - and that's bad. What's more we'll probably do it to the next US President, regardless of political colour. It doesn't excuse it in this case, especially when the particular issue has a personal as well as a political dimension. CIreland (talk) 06:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thanks - I understand where you're coming from now. I disagree but your point is a legitimate concern. I have one request - would you mind striking out the "defamation" thing above? I definitely do not like being tarred with that. With respect - Kelly ^hi! 06:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I removed defamation and replaced it with bias which probably more accurately expresses my concerns anyway. CIreland (talk) 06:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the fear of undue weight is a good reason to balance things within an article, but not a good reason to delete an alternative article. As I understand it, this article was created in part to avoid giving undue weight to these allegations within the article on John Edwards, while providing a good level of detail to those interested. It is the nature of Wikipedia that certain subjects will attract more editor attention than others, and to delete on those grounds would not help the project (to say nothing of the howls of Buffy fans as their collection of pages is pared down in proportion to the importance of World War II). RayAYang (talk) 07:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Noteworthy due to Edwards being an important Democrat who may still run for President in 2012. Also, as an aside to CIreland, we do have a similar article to the "incompetence" article, the one about the movement of impeaching Bush (which moves like a snail).--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 05:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Frankly, the "tabloid" issue is a prejudice of exactly the sort to which Wikipedia ought to be a response: the degree to which this story is notable or important doesn't depend on whether the paper folds horizontally or vertically, and the Enquirer has a pretty significant history of breaking this kind of story; contrariwise, the New York Times' recent history of poor sourcing of "gossip" articles (viz the McCain lobbyist article) might call into question whether it can be considered reliable. In any case, in this kind of article, Wikipedia ought to practice a sort of "Cǣsar's Wife" caution toward speedy deletion, rather than continue the impression that Wikipedia as a whole can't be trusted to be NPOV. -- Charlie (Colorado) (talk) 05:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to John Edwards per undue weight at this time. A paragraph or two would suffice at this point, sourced from the reliable sources used to construct this article (ie, not the blogs or the National Enquirer). Should this actually significantly impact (ie, end) Edwards' political career, then yes, at that point you could justify spinning it back off into an article a la the Lewinsky scandal. Neıl ☄ 08:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A paragraph or too would be OK, but this has not been possible due to endless obfuscation over very unreasonable UNDUE WEIGHT concerns. This is better this those concerns are not relevant and this article is anyway inevitable and informative. Bonobonobo (talk) 20:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~and merge~~ relevant content to John Edwards based on notability. This story has hardly been touched by the mainstream media, and a lot of references cited by the article are blogs and tabloids. For goodness the main claims haven't even been corroborated or confirmed by the mainstream media yet, and there's already a page on this? Ethereal (talk) 10:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not a content fork. Removing such topics from main article (John Edwards) is a good thing.Biophys (talk) 14:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Delete and merge until (if at all) more substance and notability arises. CENSEI (talk) 15:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC), alot of good points for keep and even if these allegations come to nothing, its going to become a notable story regardless at this point. CENSEI (talk) 02:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Suggestions to "delete and merge" are incompatible with the GFDL. RFerreira (talk) 18:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep More than a stub, reliably sourced, clearly notable. Joshdboz (talk) 16:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete The love child story has still not been picked up by any of the major main stream media outlets. Even after almost two weeks they have not touched this story. The original source the National Enquirer promised photos that show Edwards with his "love child" as the centerpiece piece of evidence that the story was true. All the photo shows is man holding baby in a very blurry picture. Nobody with the naked eye can even tell if it's Edwards or not. I believe that Wikipedia has cowered under the pressure of right-wing bloggers and Wikipedia editors who just want to use Wikipedia to spread this tabloid gossip during an election year. The same company that owns the National Enquirer also owns Globe magazine another supermarket tabloid that has just printed a story about an alledged Barack Obama love child now. How is that any different from John Edwards? Because it has not yet been picked up by right-wing bloggers? Because a group of Wikipedia editors have yet to start crying about being censored by Wikipedia Moderators? The "relibable sources" that have been used as a reason to not only have this story on John Edwards' page but for it to have a page of it's own are not even reporting any new info. All they've done is "report" that it hasn't been reported on in the MSM. The MSM loves a good sex scandal and if this story were true they'd be all over this story (i.e. Jesse Jackson and David Vitter), but day after day passes and they haven't said anything. Why? Because they unlike some Wikipedia editors here know the story is false and doesn't deserve attention. Maybe if I whined enough I could get Wikipedia mods to let me edit the George W. Bush page to have an section that says Bush is having an affair with Condi Rice and Laura Bush is divorcing him, the Globe has "reported" that story more than once. I'm sure I could find some liberal bloggers that could push that story and plaster it all over Google news too. I could photo shop a blurry photo of Bush and Rice kissing. This story has no place on Wikipedia because it has not been proven to be without a doubt true. If things continue as they are this page and the paragraph on the Edwards page will end up being deleted anyway; and all our time will have been waisted on this tabloid trash.--MrKing84 (talk) 07:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't speak to the Globe, I haven't done any research on them. Have their Barack Obama or Bush/Rice allegations been picked up by the mainstream press like the Edwards allegations? Kelly ^hi! 16:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Obama "story" just came out recently so the mainstream media hasn't picked up on it and considering the source I doubt they will. These are the same tabloids that have claimed that Ted Kennedy, Bill Clinton, and JFK Jr. all had love children. In fact I recall they had a photo of Ted Kennedy's "love child" on the front cover not to long ago. The Obama story is just as true as the Edwards story. Now some MSM outlets did "report" (rather spred untrue gossip) about the Bush marriage. [[6]], [[7]], [[8]], [[9]]. Now just because they picked up on this tabloid story (like they did the Edwards story) that doesn't mean a page about the alledged problems in the Bush marriage needs to be here at Wikipedia, like the Edwards love child story is. It's been 15 days since this Edwards story broke and all we have is a blurry photo, a bunch of right-wing blog articles, and a few stories in the local North Carolina media who have done more speculating rather than reporting, and speculation on why the national media hasn't picked up on the story in the last 15 days. People are using Jesse Jackson, Rush Limbaugh, and Gary Hart as examples. But the difference is those stories snowballed quickly with new info coming out very soon after the tabloids published their stories. While the Edwards story hasn't snowballed, but rather the snow is melting with each passing day. Simply put this "Edwards paternity allegations" page has no place at Wikipedia. Has anybody who wants to keep this page thought for a second, what if these allegations are NOT true? Then what? This page remains even though the allegations are unture? The paragraph on the Edwards page remains even though the allegations are untrue? Just because it's the flavor of the month? If this article remains, it will just show that Wikipedia is not about educating it's readers on what is and is not true. But rather if enough people yell loud enough and find enough blog articles on Google news, the mods will give in and let a page remain whether or not what is said on that page is true. --MrKing84 (talk) 05:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm hard pressed to find a policy that doesn't favor deletion here... WP:NPOV, WP:COATRACK, WP:UNDUE, WP:BLP, WP:NOT... take your pick. It's all be covered ad infinitum above. / Blaxthos ( t / c ) 11:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Blaxthos...in regards to the policies you cited, I think Noroton addressed those in his 01:57 post above, and I can't improve on his responses. However, I did have a question in regards to WP:NPOV being cited - I noticed that several people have mentioned this, but nobody has responded to a request for any example. Could you possibly cite an example of POV in the article? Could your concern be addressed by editing rather than deletion? Kelly ^hi! 16:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article is newsworthy, and is well documented and supported by facts ↔NMajdan•talk 14:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. A separate article such as this is a good solution to avoid burdening the one on John Edwards. The flurry in the media about covering/not-covering the story is absolutely notable, as is the palpable impact on Edwards' career. This is not just gossip or tabloid fiction akin to "Hillary Clinton Adopts Alien Baby." N.B., I supported Edwards in the primaries, so I'm certainly not part of any conspiracy against him. Kestenbaum (talk) 15:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. Major reputable news organizations are now reporting that Edwards himself has confirmed the affair but is still denying the paternity. How Wikipedia chooses to organize the information is certainly debatable, but it looks like the affair needs to be included in Wikipedia somewhere. Studerby (talk) 20:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Random break

Keep Highly notable controversy, which is now excelent impartial and complete. Solves the problems of weight on the Edwards page, and means wedon't need an article on Hunter IMHO. This is an excelent and elegant solution and mirrors the phoney McCain scandal. Wikipedia at its best, fair and seen to fair too. There are many more sources that could be added.Bonobonobo (talk) 16:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The incident seems notable. Any who claim the article seems biased are free to edit to balance it, but that's not the same as deleting well sourced information they don't like. --GRuban (talk) 17:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is more than a content fork. It is a well written and NPOV entry on a notable event. Some have mentioned that they think there are too many references to blogs in the sourcing; i see that point, and do consider it a weakness with the piece. I also believe that simple editorial pruning would solve that, through concensus. However, in aother (and i believe better) solution to this problem, i think that the blog material might be used in support of further descriptions of the way that this event (as a news event, not as a "John Edwards scandal") has brought to the fore important issues concerning the emerging and evolving ascendency of privilege and power accruing to the blogosphere, and the subsequent loss of privilege and power accorded to the traditional "gatekeepers" of news, the print journals. By adding in the tabloid media, the article presents us with an unusually clear view of the current uneasily contested triangle of "gatekeeper" privilege being waged by mainstream media versus tabloid media versus blog media. Also important, and well-mentioned here, is the pressure that this event has put on Wikipedia, as it impinges on Wiki's traditional print-medium encyclopedia directive to not report "news" while still allowing it to claim the advantages of electronic-media "up-to-date" online publishing. For me, these issues of media authority are the real story here, and they are the reason i have continued to participate in discussions on the subject of the Edwards paternity allegations. cat yronwode a.k.a. "64" Catherineyronwode (talk) 17:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The "story" is simply a tabloid-manufactured rumor, pushed by conservative media outlets and activists in the hope that it somehow snowballs from "rumor" to "news". Apparently, these miscreants hope that merely repeating the rumor long enough and loudly enough will do the trick. And the article here is primarily the work of conservative activists who are attempting to co-opt Wikipedia for blatant political purposes. J.R. Hercules (talk) 18:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, what? I'm a "conservative activist"^{[citation needed]} now? Kelly ^hi! 18:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hercules, I don't see how this is possibly a valid argument for deletion. Nyttend (talk) 20:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not. Horologium (talk) 20:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a argument at all, if anything it is an arguement to keep, since the travesty of this conspiracy would be a much bigger deal than Edwards shtuping some employee. It is irrelevant whether the story is true (it is true by the way - and I say this as a Kerry Edwards voter, you have to be very naive to bet against this story at any odds). The only question is it is a relevant news story. If it is we need a conservatively worded article that conforms to wiki policies with particular reference to BLP. Even if you are correct and this is the work of the VRWC (y'know like all those Monica LIES!) this article will discuss the phony conspiracy which will still be relevant just like the McCain and Rathergate articles, a BS-based controversy is still a controversy, Oh and I'll gladly eat my giant dunces hat if the NE story isn't ultimately vindicated. Bonobonobo (talk) 20:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Highly notable and relevant, considering who Edwards is, former VP candidate, former Prez candidate, current VP candidate, former Senator, the list goes on and on. Please NPOV for wikipedia and keep this -96.237.252.71 (talk) 20:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, Edwards would make any list of the 10 most prominant living US public figrues. No question. And as the reportage around the world shows he remains an international figure of note too.Bonobonobo (talk) 21:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As is the case with the Zinoviev letter, the allegations themselves are notable because of the media and political hubbub they've caused. Even if none of this is true, it's become important. -- The_socialist ^talk? 23:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is too soon to know what the ultimate impact of these events will be. The media coverage/noncoverage controversy is still developing, and reaches questions of journalistic ethics, for which this could become a classic example no matter what way this turns out. Whatever the eventual resolution, if any, the matter is receiving widespread attention and a number of media outlets and their readers are following the controversy. Dano —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danoldh (talk • contribs) 00:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 01:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The parentage has been fully admitted to by both parties, without challenge or equivocation. That this fact is tucked way down into the article shows that this is nothing but a POV pushing BLP vio. Until such time as something substantial, beyond rumors and reactions to rumors and blurry photos happens, this should go. Should a DNA test prove otherwise, or Edwards or one of the two parents reverse their statements, there's nothing to see here. That most of the MSM isn't touching this is proof it's nothing but rumors all the way down. They know that without proof, there's just smoke and mirrors. ThuranX (talk) 02:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Really? The claimed parentage is covered in the opening paragraph. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So when Edwards fails to receive any sort of visible role at the convention, as seems like from the latest reaction, are we to shrug our shoulders in mystification? Senior figures are going on record and telling Edwards' he done unless he can come up with an explanation. How is this not news? Ronnotel (talk) 03:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How is this not news? Erm, WP:NOTNEWS. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Allow me to restate. How is this not notable? That a former VP candidate has been given his walking papers (there is no other reasonable interpretation of these on-the-record, seemingly coordinated statements) seems like something of relevance. Ronnotel (talk) 17:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Wikipedia is always updated immediately. I remember back when I was a mere IP just occasionally reading Wikipedia, that the article on Hurricane Katrina was being freshly updated as new updates occurred. I found this to be one of the main benefits of Wikipedia and was one of the main reasons for my gradually increasing participation. Kelly ^hi! 17:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
something substantial, beyond rumors and reactions to rumors -- how 'bout destroying John Edwards' chances for the vice president nomination; a cabinet post in the possible Democratic administration and a speaking spot at the Democratic National Convention for "something substantial"? (If you need sources for that, see the article.) This has gone beyond the WP:NOTNEWS essay's description of "events that have strictly passing significance and interest. Events which only garner transitory attention do not merit encyclopedic articles". As WP:NOT#NEWS states, Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events. We're now well into "historical notability" territory, and if that sounds too highfalutin', keep in mind that Wikipedia covers rather small historical events and situations with their own articles. Noroton (talk) 01:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Besides being the subject of multiple secondary sources, the primary criteria of WP:NOTABILITY, signs are emerging from reliable sources on the implications of the allegations on the Democratic party. [10] --Oakshade (talk) 08:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This story is beginning to become a major impediment to Edwards' participation in the '08 DNC process. 68.214.96.96 (talk) 12:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Fundamentally, what is the point of Wikipedia if it refuses to be a reference point for something that people are widely talking about? Whether or not there's doubt about the actual allegation, there is ZERO doubt that this is an issue out in the public sphere. What good is Wikipedia if you can't find the things that people are most interested in at the moment? Let the MSM be in charge of not covering things until they're good and dead, the point of the Web is to be timely and fluid. Now, I think there are legitimate questions about whether a long separate article is needed, though there is something admirable about the attempt to nail all the sources down in one place and evaluate them for credibility. But it appears to me that part of the reason that long article exists is because Wikipedia biggies were so trigger-happy about yanking any shorter mention of this in the main piece about a figure on one side of the political spectrum (not the first time; try to find anything about alcohol abuse on Ted Kennedy's page, for instance, despite the numerous documentations of such over the years). Surely Wikipedia can see that all that does is increase chatter about whether Wikipedia is politically biased. The responsible thing to do here is to include calm, objective content stating that the allegations have been whispered about throughout the primary process and are, as of this moment, being reported on by a major tabloid (readers can judge the worth of that for themselves) and the story is developing. It is not to pretend it doesn't exist at all-- or that Wikipedia saying it hasn't happened means it isn't being talked about everywhere else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgmax (talk • contribs) 15:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just finished reading a newspaper article on how these allegations may cost him a convention speaking slot. Not only is it in the news, but true or not it's impacting his career and should be covered, with proper care taken, but still covered.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. No legitimate policy-based reason has been presented for deletion. This is a notable controversy involving a highly public figure, written in an unbiased manner. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 17:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Although I was tending toward the idea that this article was giving undue weight when I nominated it, my primary reason for nominating this for AFD was to enforce what seemed to be consensus on ANI against the speedy deletion and to give a way to debate deletion here. Please make sure (and I'm not saying that you didn't already do this) that you look at the ANI debate, linked at top, before you say that no legitimate etc. reasons have been presented. Nyttend (talk) 18:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this has now been mentioned in way too many reliable sources to be deleted. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: BLP and RS concerns This may look like beating a dead horse, but since WP:BLP issues are important here, and because I think it's possible that a closing admin or DRV might ignore this consensus, I want to answer some possible objections. I haven't seen most of these explicitly stated, but I think it's implicit in some comments: WP:BLP insists on good sourcing, particularly for extraordinary claims (which applies to this situation), so it might be objected that The National Enquirer (NE) is just not a reliable source, and therefore the article violates WP:BLP, and that this concern outweighs the benefits of having an article that discusses media coverage and even the historical significance of how this impinges on John Edwards' political influence and career (obviously an important subject). As WP:POL states, application of any policy, including WP:BLP and WP:RS, needs to be treated with common sense. Only a consensus that violates core policies can be overturned by a closing admin or by deletion review, and it would be improper to overturn a consensus that reasonably treats and applies those policies in a commonsense way (whether or not the closing admin or DRV ultimately agree with the consensus, they only have to recognize it as reasonable). Reasons why WP:BLP and WP:RS (and WP:V) are not violated, and instead are treated with common-sense in this case:

The NE story has been treated as something serious by responsible news organizations. Fox News, a reliable source, confirmed that Edwards and the NE reporters were in a confrontation of sorts at the Beverly Hills hotel. Edwards has refused to say why he was at the hotel and, since the NE story about it, he has not denied that he is the father. With this event in the hotel (even before the Fox News corroboration), the story started being mentioned by other news organizations. Those organizations were using their common sense that there is something important enough to cover. Although not every news organization has decided to mention the allegations, that isn't required by any Wikipedia policy.
The lack of denial by Edwards about paternity and the lack of an explanation for his presence in that hotel at that time increases the credibility of NE coverage of this situation. With influential Democrats now reported as saying Edwards needs to clear this up or be denied a speaking spot at the convention, the credibility of NE increases even further.
The article name states clearly that the subject concerns allegations. Wikipedia isn't asserting the truth of the paternity. By having the article, Wikipedia is implicitly asserting that the allegations are important (historically significant), and they are.
The spirit of WP:RS is that we shouldn't be irresponsible by citing irresponsible sources. When many news reports from solidly reliable sources identify a historically significant situation, we are not being irresponsible by covering that situation and citing those sources. Instead, we're using our common sense.
WP:RS states: When adding contentious biographical material about living persons that relies upon news organizations, only material from high-quality news organizations should be used. The widespread repetition of the allegations by high-quality news organizations allows us to rely on them for proof that the allegations exist and are notable. Without coverage from those organizations, there would be no justification for an article here. The word only should not be a sticking point here. The NE story is obviously necessary to this article about this significant, notable allegation. The fact that high-quality news organizations have covered the issue also answers possible objections based on WP:REDFLAG and WP:BLP#Reliable sources.
WP:RS states: Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made The claim made by numerous reliable sources is that there is an important allegation, not that Edwards is the father (only NE claims that).
Imagine that NE were not a tabloid sheet and that it was instead a person who happened to make charges against Edwards that were then reported by various major media organizations, that Edwards did not deny the charges but simply said the person who made them was acting "like a tabloid", and that Democratic Party figures were saying that Edwards couldn't expect to be the vice presidential nominee or even speak at the convention unless he explained the situation. If that were the case, the sources we'd rely on would be the various reliable news organizations that have reported on this, and we might refer to the statement of the person making the charges. That's essentially the situation here -- the reliability rests on the other news organizations, not NE.

-- Noroton (talk) 04:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the National Editor of the Los Angeles Times has apparently now gone on the record that, because of the impact on the Democratic National Convention, this is now a "legitimate story".[11] Kelly ^hi! 13:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (or move wholesale to his biography), as pointed out above, it's now a "legitimate story" according to the LA Times, with regards to Dem. Convention and he's recently run for POTUS and possibly trying to garner a spot as VPOTUS, or a cabinet position. The National Enquirer, of course, isn't the most reputable source, but we can source other news sources that reference them. --Rajah (talk) 14:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

News Break

Comment All of the above comments made before Edwards had this interview by ABC. GRBerry 19:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Regardless of whatever else happens, that new interview means this story will almost definitely be permenantly needed as a sub-article of John Edwards, even ignoring the story about media coverage angle. GRBerry 19:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is real news now. You freaking libs can't pretend this is just tabloid. Please remove the "article up for deletion thing now." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.248.172 (talk) 19:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Always the charmer, aren'tcha. MastCell ^Talk 19:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:SNOW is the only way we can have a premature "keep" close, and we've had way too many "delete" votes to close this for that reason. Nyttend (talk) 19:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, based on this new, reliable source, I for one am withdrawing my delete !vote. It was predicated on a lack of non-tabloid sources attesting to the allegations. Now that there are such sources, I no longer have an objection to the article's existence, though I think it will require continued vigilance and I'd rather see the effort expended on how to incorporate this now-reliably-documented episode into the main John Edwards article. Thanks for the update, GRBerry. MastCell ^Talk 19:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Now that we have confirmation, I see it being at least as worthy of an article as John McCain lobbyist controversy, February 2008. Oroso (talk) 19:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Concur, now that there are reliable sources confirming the allegations, this needs to stay. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 19:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Meaning all my arguments were for nothing? How DARE he admit it before this AfD closed! At this point we should be considering a name change on the talk page. Noroton (talk) 20:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's already been moved to John Edwards extramarital affair. (Not by me.) Horologium (talk) 20:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Now that JE has confirmed the majority of the speculation, the entire process, including the wikipedia arguments, are part of the story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yellowking (talk • contribs) 20:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Should this AfD be closed per WP:SNOW? Ronnotel (talk) 20:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. Let's just get past the bureaucratic BS and make the article not look foolish.
Keep, per GRBerry above. There is really no choice now. Nsk92 (talk) 20:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per recent disclosures. Better page name now too. ~Eliz81 ^(C) 21:09, 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. John254 16:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sandro Nocentini

Obvious vanity violation, proof is in the edit comments left in the history. I also recommend we do NOT move the GFDL-released image into commons, but delete it in good faith that the author of the work/uploader was likely unfamiliar with GFDL and would not appreciate finding his work used for a commercial purpose (click here). ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 15:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Notability established by winning the Sulman Prize, which is now sourced. Passes, if barely, the requirements of WP:CREATIVE. Could use sourcing for the rest of the article, though. RayAYang (talk) 17:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 01:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment by nominator this article has improved with sources and it's nice to see other edits on the page besides those made by the article's subject. however, i wasn't aware winning an award (admittedly a significant award... we have an article on it XD ) was part of WP:CREATIVE. In fact, the award is why i didn't prod this article outright. If the community feels it makes him noteworthy, and are ok with this rare exception to WP:AUTO, we should add this to the guideline :) The sources provided are an article which is actually about John Olsen, a school/tutoring site with autobiographies of its staff, and a mention in an article about a compilation book on Princess Diana - they establish verifiability, but that's it. I personally hate notability criteria, but the fact that the artist is the one who wrote the article (clear COI issue) and made any substantive edits over the past few years until now, suggests that he's not even significant enough for wikipedia editors to look for him. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 14:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd say that Tyrenius has made enough changes that it's no longer an autobiography, and he's received significant levels of critical attention, judging by the new references -- I rather assumed that winning a notable award was reasonable evidence of getting a fair bit of critical attention, but wasn't sure, hence the weakness in my original suggestion. I know almost nada about art, after all. RayAYang (talk) 02:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:AUTO isn't a reason to delete. I've rewritten the whole article anyway. The Art Gallery of New South Wales defines the Sir John Sulman Prize as one of four "major art prizes". It is "awarded annually for 'the best subject/genre painting and/or murals/mural project executed during the two years preceding the [closing] date ...' " WP:CREATIVE can be satisfied by "The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention." I suggest that the winning of this prize meets all those requirements. The artist is now on record for evermore. I note also that all the winners of the Prize have been listed and wikilinked. Ty 04:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article's been improved and merits inclusion...Modernist (talk) 23:26, 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 Withdrawn by nominator

Page (MCC cricketer)

Delete nn sportsman. Only one single source attests to his existence, playing in two matches. Mayalld (talk) 15:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn Accept the view of others on notability (even if the article will never expand beyond this) Mayalld (talk) 16:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Passes requirements of WP:ATHLETE and WP:CRIN by having played in two first-class aka major cricket matches, first-class cricket being the equivalent of major league baseball, Premiership football, etc. Furthermore, the article quotes not one but TWO impeccable sources: Scores & Biographies and CricketArchive. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 15:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even one appearance in major sport is sufficient to pass WP:ATHLETE. --Dweller (talk) 15:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Meets WP:Athlete, two sources, no problem. Andrew nixon (talk) 15:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Both sources are simply reporting on a single original source (the scorecard) which bears the name "Page". With such scant information, it is impossible to conclude anything about this player. It is also unclear whether these were 1st Class matches from the sources. (1st class cricket as a term was invented long after these matches) Mayalld (talk) 16:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the first class or otherwise status has been established retrospectively for every match ever played, but that's not the point here. "Major" matches were the highest level of the game played at that time and as such, it's notable per ATHLETE. --Dweller (talk) 16:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:ATHLETE applies, even to 18th century players. Johnlp (talk) 16:08, 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 nomination withdrawn. Keep votes make perfect sense. Wizardman 11:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Klaus Dodds

Article has a lot of issues, including failing WP:V. The fact that it's an autobiography pushes me to AfD. Wizardman 15:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. He seems to have published quite a bit, and with major academic publishers such as Routledge and Oxford University Press.[12] So probably he is worth an article, but this one looks like having copyright problems [13].--Troikoalogo (talk) 16:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 17:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep afd is not an cleanup or improve.--Buridan (talk) 18:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article needs clean-up, but the subject is definitely notable per WP:PROF. In 2005 he has been awarded the Philip Leverhulme Prize[14] (I have added a reference to the award cotation to the article). Also, fairly impressive GoogleBooks results[15] - 190 hits. His webpage[16] also says that he is an editor of several scholarly journals: "Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers" (confirmed at their website[17]), "Geography Compass"[18], "Geopolitics", "Polar Record", "Political Geography"[19]. Satisfies WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 01:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup as per Nsk92. --Crusio (talk) 06:14, 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 Clear case of snow. Article needs some improvement, but doesn't require deletion to address issues.. TravellingCari 01:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doc Searls

No references to prove notability. Snowman (talk) 15:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Do we delete bios of notable people because the reference section needs a cleanup? Coauthor of The Cluetrain Manifesto -- influential and indeed over-culted business book that PC Mag calls "the book that won't die." [20]. How about this recent article in Fast Company where they interviewed Doc and celebrated the tenth anniversary of Cluetrain? [21] I recommend a speedy close of this nomination. betsythedevine (talk) 17:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Comment Our habit of defaulting to printed sources (and their websites) as reliable and bloggers as not is hurting us pretty badly when it comes to evaluating subjects relating to online media. In this case, I just spent about 10 minutes playing around on Google News, and the number of dead-tree sources here is thin indeed, but Doc Searls' celebrity is obvious. This may be something to take up at Wikipedia:Reliable source examples. See, e.g., [22], for example. RayAYang (talk) 17:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep afd is not cleanup. doc is notable. --Buridan (talk) 20:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Doc is notable as author of The Cluetrain Manifesto. AlexH (talk) 22:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep Doc is both notable as the cluetrain author but also due to his fellowship at the berkman center in harvard. Completely agree with RayAYang's point as well. Imajes (talk) 23:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep Now VRM (finally) starts to take off, you want the godfather of VRM to be taken "down" ??? Bart Stevens, iChoosr —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.194.43.82 (talk) 14:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 500k hits on google is no small event either, though in and of itself it may not mean much, but in this context it does. --Jasonnolan (talk) 23:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

offer also , i would say as an offer to keep - i will offer to write a more complete bio as long as the afd is nulled. -- Imajes (talk) 23:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's actually significant reliable/printed sources, but they're more obscure (and obscured) by the blog mentions -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 03:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Doc has played a huge role in Open source - as recognized by the Google Communicator Award in 2005 [23] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.104.161.212 (talk) 05:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep although the article needs work. However Cluetrain alone justifies the page --Snowded TALK 05:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : Influential blogger, author and columnist. He inspires a lot of bloggers and techies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.58.156 (talk) 12:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : Meets all the requirements to be considered a notable person: He's been quoted in a number of media, either directly or quotes from "The Cluetrain Manifesto" which was considered notable enough to deserve its own entry on Wikipedia (based on "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews."). Currently involvement as the thought leader on VRM is another item to add to notability (based on "person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.") --TNL (talk) 14:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment : looks like this is speedy keep under wp:snowball . --Buridan (talk) 19:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : Doc's contributions to Internet culture and blogging are, as it were, information infrastructure. They have and continue to fundamentally inform the dialogue on and about the Internet, open source, and on-line marketing marketing. --jwunderl —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: He more than qualifies under WP:CREATIVE alone. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 22:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:31, 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. Wizardman 15:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Domestic Well-Being Accounting (DWBA)

See the concurrent AfD discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DWBA Sample Products for essentially similar arguments against retention of this article. Entirely original research, no references that are not self-generated (the article's author is also the author of the only reference, which is self-published and thus confers no notability), WP:SPAM, WP:FRINGE. Accounting4Taste:talk 15:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - original research, no references from independent reliable sources. JohnCD (talk) 17:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Essentially advertising. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 00:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. PhilKnight (talk) 14:47, 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 and redirect. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 09:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Nalo

NN criminal... Article claims him to be a "successful and well-known" burglar, but article does not mention much in the way of notability (other than a couple robberies), and is unsourced. There are no G-news hits (and very few G-hits) for "Samuel Nelo". There are a couple G-news hits that list the name "Sorecho Nalo A.K.A. Sam Nelo", but these appear to be brief mentions in court paperwork. Does not seem to pass notability concerns... Adolphus79 (talk) 15:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Nalo seemed to get one small burst of publicity, with nationally papers writing about the Hotel Pierre robbery. Then the New York Times wrote about the sentencing. Most of the articles are behind paywall. See [24] the New York Times article, 641 words long, about the sentencing of the Pierre Hotel robbers, which Google [25] says is about Sam Nalo and 2 others. This appears to be substantial coverage and not just "brief mention in court paperwork." The Holland Michigan, Evening Sentinel for January 10, 1972 (Newspaperarchive.com, subscription)has a UPI story "$750,000 in gems recovered" about the Hotel Pierre robbery, in which four well dressed men invaded the hotel, cleaned out 47 safe deposit boxes, and fled in a limo. The wire service story has two paragraphs about Nalo, although the bulk of the story is about the recovery of $750,000 in gems, the robbery, and the arrest of five men including Nalo by the FBI for stealing 1 to 5 million in gems. The Hotel Pierre robbery story was carried nationwide [26] perhaps based on wire service stories. Still seems to be about one event, and rather bare bones notability at that. The robbery was more notable than the one robber. Edison (talk) 15:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: OK, "brief mention in court paperwork" might have been a bit understated... but I agree, the information available covers the robberies themselves, with him only being mentioned as one of the people involved, none of the sources I found are about him specifically... - Adolphus79 (talk) 16:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge to Pierre Hotel Robbery per WP:BIO1E. Sammy the Arab was credited and jailed for a record breaking crime, but that's all he gets WP:RS coverage for. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 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 Delete. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 03:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ctrl+Alt+Del characters

This page is pure fancruft. It has no good references to exert notability because they are all primary sources. The characters that need to be described are already amply covered here. Artichoker[talk] 15:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is entirely in-universe plot summary. JohnCD (talk) 17:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete overly long list of characters with limited real world relevance. JuJube (talk) 19:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Character lists are legitimate spinout articles to keep the main article from growing too long. Edward321 (talk) 23:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This is no excuse for being completely unencyclopedic and in-universe. First of all, the parent article (Ctrl+Alt+Del) is not too long, and a character list could be added if needed. Secondly, this list doesn't need to document every single character that has ever appear in the comics, only the major ones should be included, and those are already in the main article. Artichoker[talk] 23:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even as a fan I don't think this list needs to be here. The main characters, and recurring minor characters can easily be accomodated in the main article about the comic. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "list of ...... characters" generally should not have its own article unless the main ficitonal work article is too long and all the content meets WP:NOT and three content policies, just as Japanese Wikipedia does. I think we can later refer to Japanese Wikipedia when dealing deletion disputes related to fictional characters, places, events or other things. --RekishiEJ (talk) 08:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. In fact, lack of any coverage that is independent of the subject. PhilKnight (talk) 14:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, unoriginal research, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world), What Wikipedia is, and Wikipedia:Lists (discriminate, encyclopedic, maintainable, notable, unoriginal, and verifiable). WP:ITSCRUFT is never an acceptable reason for deletion. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well WP:N certainly is. Artichoker[talk] 20:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fortunately, these meet that. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Umm, no they don't? The references are composed entirely of self-published sources which do not show real-world notability. I fail to see how this therefore passes WP:N. Please provide some rationale. Artichoker[talk] 23:36, 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 Non-admin closure: keep; withdrawn by monimee. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bounce With Me (Kreesha Turner song)

fails WP:MUSIC even admitting that it has not charted; NN song - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 15:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. According to the article at Kreesha Turner, "The single became her first charting song and peaked at number 53 on the Canadian Hot 100." I think this therefore meets WP:MUSIC, unless the other article is mistaken. (And in a case of serendipity, it was playing on my radio when I noticed the AfD discussion.) Accounting4Taste:talk 15:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment See [[27]]; it apparently peaked at #8. Accounting4Taste:talk 15:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:07, 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 No consensus. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 08:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hiroko Mita

Notability in question since May '07, fails WP:V and WP:BIO as well. Wizardman 15:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Because to be stub is not sin and this article in Japanese Wikipedia presents the list of works of this actress. Zero Kitsune (talk) 03:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and put notability question to rest. The links to IMDB and JMDB have clearly established that this actress is noteworthy and have been there from the first version of the article. Fg2 (talk) 11:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 11:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note, she was in four films, all bit roles in what appear to be non-notable movies. Unless I'm missing something, notability isn't established from those two links, if anything it shows non-notability unless something else is found. Wizardman 11:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, the way I see it, she played the lead in "Let's Gotokuji" and was the first supporting actress in "Miyuki." The latter won an award and garnered another nomination (even if not for Hiroko Mita). The other movies may not have been nominated for awards, but don't they appear to be legitimate commercial releases? Fg2 (talk) 12:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There does not appear to be a body of work that indicates notability....to date, it appears to be bit roles. If a body of work develops, then notability may be established. --Stormbay (talk) 18:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Might otherwise be notable, but the criterion here is notability supplied by the article itself, and that is zero. GregorB (talk) 22:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looking at the Japanese article, she is also a popular singer, has been in numerous TV commercials, also looking at this whatlinkshere to her page, there is over 100 articles on the ja wikipedia that link to her article. There is a translation request on the talk page. Maybe we should notify someone at the Japanese WikiProject to contribute to this discussion. —Borgarde^talk 15:30, 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 Keep - Four contributors were satisfied that notability was demonstrated, one was surprised that more sources had not been added, and one did not accept that the sources demonstrated notability. The consensus was that this is a notable subject. (non-admin) SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Knight Online

Notability in question since May '07, fails WP:V as well. Wizardman 14:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Being the #4 MMORPG in the world cuts it for me, regardless of anything else. Even if the numbers are a bit off mark, #4 plus or minus two would still make this topic notable. User:Krator (t c) 23:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - Seeing the position the game is in and the hits I'm getting off of Google, I'm having trouble understanding why it is no one thought to add in the easily located information required for WP:V. I'm inclined to agree with Krator. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 23:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Article is not encyclopedic in nature. It is written like an advertisement as well as a game guide. MuZemike (talk) 00:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Those are reasons to clean-up not to delete. Banjeboi 12:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I will add that this article lacks verifiable, third-party sources that establish notability. Just because users claim that the game is popular or big does not demonstrate notability. Appropriate sources must verify that. MuZemike (talk) 18:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although the article has many flaws, it's not enough reason for deletion. Notability is rock solid. --MrStalker ^(talk) 09:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources that establish said "rock solid notability?" MuZemike (talk) 20:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability is clear. -- DS1953 ^talk 23:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. 8.91% of MMORPG market share is amply sufficient for notability. GregorB (talk) 22:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. See WP:BIGNUMBER. It's the sources, not size that determines notability. MuZemike (talk) 18:46, 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 15:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Danincginmydreams

Doesn't pass WP:N. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 14:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dancinginmydreams', foaled in 1998 at Claiborne Farm in Paris, Kentucky, is an American Thoroughbred Filly Racehorse]]. Her sire is the Claiborne Stallion, Seeking The Gold. Her dam is the Nijinsky mare, Oh What A Dance]]. This makes her a full sister to Champion Filly, Heavenly Prize, as well as Grade 1 winner, Oh What A Windfall. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr. D. Taylor (talk • contribs)

The above user accidentally wiped out this afd page with the comment above. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 15:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability isn't inherited, which applies to horses as well as humans. TN‑X-Man 19:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree that notability isn't inherited, and there is a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. PhilKnight (talk) 14:53, 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 deleted (CSD G7) by Edgar181. Non-admin closure. Cliff smith ^talk 17:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discipull clothing

Subject does not appear to meet notability requirements. Could not locate significant coverage in independent reliable sources. I had originally nominated the article for speedy deletion but initial contributor stated he was actively working on the article including adding sourcing, so I self-reverted but expressly reserved the right to nominate at AfD if notability assertion was not provided. He has not been back since. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 14:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could not find any independent and reliable sources with coverage of the subject of the article, and there are no such refs included now. I fixed the ref formatting so the 2 refs are viewable, but they seem like passing ref in bloggy online sites. Fails WP:N. Come back when the film or the product become notable. Edison (talk) 15:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable, we're not here to promote his clothing line and forthcoming DVD. JohnCD (talk) 17:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G7. Author has blanked the page. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 13:00, 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) 18:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Demigodz

Fails WP:MUSIC. A "supergroup" composed solely of artists signed to the supergroup's label, none of whom pass WP:MUSIC other than by virtue of being members of this group which is notable because of those same members. A walled garden. Mdsummermsw (talk) 14:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Mostly because it's lacking in third party sources indicating notability. I like that term, "walled garden."--Quartermaster (talk) 14:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not have refs to show it satisfies WP:MUSIC. Do such reliable sources exist, with substantial coverage of this group? If so add them or at least identify them here. The chatty article says the "group" had different names and different members over the years, so refs solely about individual members would not prove this group was notable. Edison (talk) 14:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm hard-pressed to see how this band claims to be notable. Regardless, does not meet WP:MUSIC. TN‑X-Man 19:06, 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 23:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Allmusic has a bio. sparkl_!sm ^hey! 19:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - A reliable source, but it's all of two sentences long: One about the group and one about its members other activities. That's not substantial coverage by any measure. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 20:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hmmm I've had a poke around and found this and this, but not much else. I'm quite surprised actually; as someone with a keen interest in underground hip-hop, I'm very familiar with these guys and their work, even all the way over here in the UK. I was shocked to see this nominated, but now that I've looked I can see that they are very, very close to failing WP:MUSIC - with that in mind, delete unless other reliable sources are forthcoming. sparkl_!sm ^hey! 21:05, 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. Not subject of multiple non-trivial coverage in secondary sources independent of the subject. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 03:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Celph Titled

Contested prod. Non-notable, failed previous AfD, still fails WP:MUSIC. Mdsummermsw (talk) 14:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Has anything changed since Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Celph Titled?--Troikoalogo (talk) 14:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSIC in every way, though I like his recording name. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:39, 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 23:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Before this gets closed, it might be worth looking through these to see if there are any non-trivial mentions. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've now deleted the material that appeared to have been copied from another website, and have added a few of the media mentions, which mostly help to verify his many collaborations with other (blue-linked) artists. Although the discussions about Celph himself are brief there are many, more than just the five I added. I would say keep, per WP:MUSIC criterion #1 and give this article more of a chance to expand. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - significant coverage PhilKnight (talk) 15:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Please identify the specific sources you feel are significant coverage in reliable sources. The first few I get in that search are a blog, two sentences in an article identifying him and other "new talent", another blog, minor mention, mentions in a non-reliable source, etc. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 16:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mdsummermsw, I'll rephrase. PhilKnight (talk) 16:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - adequate coverage PhilKnight (talk) 16:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Can you please explain which sources you feel show that Celph Titled is the "subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable"? Of the examples I cited above, all were trivial mentions and/or unreliable sources. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 17:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - This mention isn't entirely trivial. PhilKnight (talk) 17:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Here's the entire content of that: Celph Titled was a producer, first in 1997 with his own group, then with Kool G. Rap and Ice-T. His single, "Right Now" was heard by a DJ. I don't see that as substantial coverage. I could write more, citing reliable sources, about my 5th grade gym teacher. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 18:35, 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. PhilKnight (talk) 18:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Justice Squad

This article does not assert the notability of its subject and is an extensive plot summary. The article is written in a manner to advertise the web-show(?) and is entirely based on primary source (the show itself). Whether the subject is notable or not, the article in its current state is not salvageable. --Farix (Talk) 14:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as insufficiently notable. No evidence at all this fictional group has been the subject of coverage by multiple, reliable, third-party published sources. — Satori Son 14:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per what Satori Son said. --Quartermaster (talk) 14:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no independent coverage, and all this seems to be is an excessive plot summary from a redlinked internet TV show. Does not seem to assert or demonstrate any real notability. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 17:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:40, 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, sources have been found to meet the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 19:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Magic Thief

I don't see any qualifications to make me believe that this book passes WP:NB. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 13:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. According to Open WorldCat, at least 189 libraries (mostly public, mostly US) own this book. Also, external reviews (FYI, mentioned via Amazon) in ALA Booklist and Bulletin of the Center for Children’s Books (starred review) says: "This is the first in an anticipated trilogy, and since Conn has a lot yet to learn, he is sure to draw avid fans back for more." Keep the article, but it does need some work. --Quartermaster (talk) 14:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete does not currently appear to meet notability standards. I was only able to find a single passing reference in a reliable source. -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Buttressing my original Keep vote above, this is a Harper-Collins imprint (major publisher) and has been reviewed by Kirkus, as well as (mentioned above)ALA Booklist and Bulletin of the Center for Children’s Books all three of which are reliable sources used by librarians (me) to identify noteworthy books for purchase. I'd rather the original editor would be making this defense, but what you gonna do? --Quartermaster (talk) 13:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 5,100 hits for quotation bounded book title reveals notability, as do multiple large-scale book reviews. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 02:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Found five reviews from reliable sources via EBSCO
- "The Magic Thief." Publishers Weekly 255, no. 24 (June 16, 2008): 48-49.
- Giffard, Sue. "The Magic Thief." School Library Journal 54, no. 6 (June 2008): 148-148
- "THE MAGIC THIEF: Book One." Kirkus Reviews 76, no. 9 (May 2008): 497-497
- Cooper, Ilene. "The Magic Thief." Booklist 104, no. 18 (May 15, 2008): 59-60.
- Cooper, Ilene. "The Magic Thief." Book Links 17, no. 6 (July 2008): 53-54. --Captain-tucker (talk) 19:02, 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 speedily deleted (A7). --MCB (talk) 06:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Dalton

Article fails to assert notability of this game designer. In addition, all links lead to (copyright infringing) software download site. Addionne (talk) 13:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete (A7) — No indication whatsoever as to why this person may be notable. MuZemike (talk) 00:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Who? Speedy delete per CSD A7. --MrStalker ^(talk) 09:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - tagged as A7. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to find google hits that even hit at notability. <font color="#00ff<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Lupin/navpop.css&action=raw&ctype=text/css&dontcountme=s">00"> Dloh cierekim 03:01, 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 the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 19:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dream On Contest

Article is unsourced, unverifiable and fails to assert notability in any way. The only link is a broken one, and the things that come up in a search are forums and such. Addionne (talk) 13:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — If The GOAT Store has been deleted, then it is appropriate that this be deleted, as well. MuZemike (talk) 00:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Link dead, few external references, and if the company that released the games and the games themselves are not notable, neither is the competition to decide what the games would be.D3l8 (talk) 03:53, 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) 18:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hatashe Channel

Little context, no assertion of why this a notable channel, no references, no ghits. Failed {{prod2}}. Toddst1 (talk) 13:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - created by a blocked sockpuppet (and since edited by another apparent sockpuppet to dispute the prod), of a master (User:Hatashe) that edits Bangladeshi related topics connected with himself. No sources for this, lacks WP:V. Benea (talk) 13:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lacks any WP:RS to WP:V its WP:N ... Happy Editing! — 72.75.78.75 (talk · contribs) _{15:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)}[reply]
Delete per nom; Benea, the creator of the page doesn't actually have an effect on whether or not it's a worthy article. Ironho lds 19:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as patent nonsense. --Ragib (talk) 02:55, 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. Wizardman 01:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Collarity

This page seems to merely mention that this company exists and provides links to pages that the company provides services for. Looks like Wikipedia:Vanispamcruftisement. Stijndon (talk) 13:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Only one of the links has what I would consider to be decent coverage in terms of notability standards - one gives a mention that it exists, and the other has nothing to do with the company even in the slightest. Even with that one good reference, that can hardly be classified as significant... Addionne (talk) 17:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Added an additional reference with more direct focus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robrustad (talk • contribs) 17:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I believe reference links are now more in line with notability standards.--Saramontrio (talk) 22:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I get to vote, too. The page is so empty! Stijndon (talk) 22:37, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - adequate coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 15:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Added company history.--Robrustad (talk) 15:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Added high-level product summary and company infobox.--Robrustad (talk) 18:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 08:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Being mentioned in an article in Information Week gives a slight claim to notability. -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 12:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very Weak Keep - Per Jedilofty, and this article needs inline citations. --Meld shal 12:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Should Wikipedia list every company in the world? This one does not justify notability beyond that which any normal company might have. Certainly not worthy of an article, and the one that is presently up looks like a short advert for the company itself.Wikigonish (talk) 15:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This has sufficient references, and it is for a company/product which has high public visibility - search engines. I think this is of general interest and notability. Brianyoumans (talk) 18:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Added inline citations, additional references, and new technology focus section to better explain notability.--Robrustad (talk) 19:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The WSJ mention is pretty trivial, but the other coverage sufficiently establishes notability. - Eldereft (cont.) 22:33, 12 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. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Donk!

Unsourced, non-notable game by non-notable developer. Very few G-hits that are not user-generated content sites or fansites and zero G-archive hits that I could find. Addionne (talk) 13:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Updated for Dreamcast? This seems to be somewhat out-of-date, along with the issues mentioned by the nom. TN‑X-Man 18:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The Amiga Magazine Rack has scads of review on-tap for this game, this is no less notable than any generic action game released for the PS3/360/Wii, which are again reviewed in several newstand magazines like the ones stored at the rack. Just tag it for references. Someone another 23:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Agree with Someoneanother. MuZemike (talk) 23:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's notable enough by virtue of having been published commercially. The article needs a makeover. 地炎風水闇陽 ^(Talk) 06:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn by Nominator Thanks Someoneanother - I looked for sources out there and couldn't find any, but that site is a great resource. So now I just think that it needs a clean-up... :) Addionne (talk) 12:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- My pleasure, the magazine rack isn't widely known and I only stumbled on it by accident once. Someone another 17:53, 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 No Consensus, defaults to Keep, disagreement over whether this is a WP:CRYSTAL violation at this stage. Davewild (talk) 19:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AC/DC's fifteenth studio album

Article is entirely a WP:CRYSTAL violation and is composed almost entirely of rumors. Is not yet notable per WP:MUSIC#Albums, as the album title, release date, and track list have not been officially released by the label. Fails WP:HAMMER. PROD for these reasons contested, saying that confirmation by the label is forthcoming; if this does happen during this AfD, I will be happy to withdraw. lifebaka++ 13:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Let's wait until something happens. Alex (talk) 15:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are sources, but only one or two pertains to the album in question, the rest is just coatrack. Overall, I still think this fails WP:HAMMER. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 15:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I revert anonymous editors several times a day, with their updates and rumour mill garbage, and my (and other editors') appeals fall on deaf ears. While this article as it stands is a waste of space, deleting it is a total waste of time. I predict its recreation within 10 minutes of its deletion, complete with all the badly sourced guff you see there now. The official announcement is "fairly" imminent, and when it comes it will be renamed and wiped of all the unsourced stuff. There's just no point in deletion / recreation time after time. We surely have a week or two's patience to wait for the official word. I also think the album IS notable, simply because it is confirmed officially that there IS an album coming this year, and the band itself makes the album notable. Why does the album need a name to be notable? Its notability is hardly reduced because it is temporarily nameless. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note I have removed the worst of the badly sourced rumours, and what remains seems well sourced - the official website, Reuters etc. Any further comments would be welcome. "Somewhat" reliable sources, which are not in the article because of their non-official status do state that a single is due this month. I am possibly the harshest editor working on this article, along with User:Anger22, but even I concede that an announcement about the single IS due within days or a couple of weeks, probably with the album details too. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As soon as such an announcement comes I'll be happy to undelete. But without it, the album isn't notable by the accepted guideline. Against repeated recreation, salting the earth is always an option, and predicted recreation is not a good reason not to delete. I would like to note that this nomination is not supposed to be a slight against you or other editors working on the article, it's just that the album does not currently belong on Wikipedia. Cheers. lifebaka++ 23:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just think that to go to all the trouble of deleting and salting the earth etc for something which will be recreated "legitimately" within a few days is a bit over the top. The album is clearly on its way soon, with proper sources to verify. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:CRYSTAL because it has references and sources. There is, and will be more, info on AC/DC's website as the release date draws nearer. I agree with Bretonbanquet. Tezkag72 (talk) 23:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep plus comment I just heard on the radio, the new album is possibly titled Black Ice. If this is the case, and it can be properly sourced, wouldn't that make this AFD somewhat moot? Even so, i'm going with a weak keep for a couple reasons, one that it does seem sourced, and two, that it previously survived one AFD. If the name can be confirmed, I'll change to strong keep. Umbralcorax (talk) 15:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources aren't solid, just a pile of contradictory rumors.
Kww (talk) 02:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Which sources aren't solid, the ones from the official website? Reuters, perhaps? Which rumours are contradictory? Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rephrase: The sources, while reliable, aren't reporting solid information. There are multiple release dates spanning 4 years, multiple release channels, only rumors for titles, and no confirmed track list.
Kww (talk) 16:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wait until AC/DC officially release the name of the new album. Doctoracdc72 (talk) 16:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CommentThere is now only one segment containing information about the release of the album, from the official site. There is confusion over the release channel, but it is well sourced. I do not accept that the absence of a title or a track listing automatically makes an album non-notable. A confirmed, but untitled, upcoming album by a world-famous band is infinitely more notable than a titled album with a track listing from a more obscure band. I don't see how the article fails WP:CRYSTAL because the album is officially confirmed. WP:HAMMER is a guideline, one which I believe is flawed anyway. Notability does not, or should not, depend on whether an album has a title or not. Either it's notable or it isn't, and this album is notable. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, HAMMER is an essay. But it's based off of WP:MUSIC#Albums, which says those things are usually required. I'm perfectly happy to have people prove me wrong, though. Cheers. lifebaka++ 19:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's monitored well enough to stay consistent with the refs and rumour free. Libs (talk) 18:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think whatever factual content exists can be maintained until it is released. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 21:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is information about it apparently, even if the name has not been disclosed yet. But there is information about the recording of the album and about some songs to be on it, all sourced with reliable sources. It does thus not fail WP:CRYSTAL and the fact that some people add rumors does not give a reason for deletion, more a reason for semi-protection or protection. So#Why ^{review me!} 17:12, 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 WaveDancers and BMP, since it's unsourced there's nothing to merge. No consensus on Ditrich because I could hardly tell what the opinion was. May be renommed separately if desired. Wizardman 01:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Black Mermaid Productions

Non-notable. This is part of a group of articles created by an account named after an individual involved, User:Jozefszekeres, seemingly with promotional intent. Sticky Parkin 13:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they're other non-notable promotional efforts by this account, of which two similar articles have been speedy deleted as blatant advertising:

Delete all No notability asserted, no reliable sources, promotional tone. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:N and WP:RS. Cliff smith ^talk 00:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge BMP to Julie Ditrich. I'd be wary of lumping them all together (even if they were crated by the same editor). Julie Ditrich did write those titles [28] and Wavedancers is part of Elfquest, which is a pretty important fictional world/story. I'd suggest we deal with BMP by merging it into Julie Ditrich and then take things from there. It should be possible to get sources for her and we can then throw the Wavedancers issue over to the folks at Elfquest as it may be they can either nail down the notability or merge it into Elfquest. (Emperor (talk) 18:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]
I'll go along with a 'merge along Emperor's proposed lines. Redirects are free, and informative. Redlinks aren't. Hiding T 17:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested above. Elfquest is pretty well-known (to nerds like me) so it has some merit. Stijndon (talk) 19:13, 12 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, there are plenty of suggestions for how the article should be improved but there is a weak consensus that this is an appropriate article is some form. Davewild (talk) 19:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrity and notable guest appearances in Doctor Who

At it's last deletion debate, it was proposed that the article be trimmed down and references given. Little of either has been actioned, the article remains rather bloated and free of all but a handful of references. Other than that, I'm not sure what it does for our understanding of Doctor Who, or what role it fulfils on Wikipedia where other fan based wikis exist. The article lists people who have been described as celebrities (by who?) or notable else where (in which case, what does it have to do with Doctor Who?). If it described actors and actresses who used Doctor Who as a springboard for later fame, or where a guest star created an episode or story of note, I might see the point. Otherwise, it seems to serve no purpose when cast lists have been created on the individual pages for Doctor Who stories. Alastairward (talk) 13:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - hugely crufty, but reasonably verifiable. I can't see any reason to remove it.--Troikoalogo (talk) 14:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hugely crufty, I can't see any reason to have created it, nor to keep it. What does it do that the cast list on each episode doesn't? In what way do the actors and actresses on it count as notable or celebrities in each case? Alastairward (talk) 17:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there's no criteria for the list at all. For example, Paul O'Grady's role was a celebrity appearance, but not particulalry notable. Vice-versa for Bleach. The nom makes a case on how to make the article better, but even that may be unable to be done verifiably. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep I think the article is great in terms of "real world" material that everyone seems to want out of fiction. I think it's poor because the criteria (notable or celebrity?) is poor. I'd just go with notable. Article could use some serious cleaning, but that isn't a reason to delete. Hobit (talk) 19:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's a little too fancrufty. DonQuixote (talk) 19:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:CRUFT is not a valid reason for deletion. The article mentions why a certain person listed is considered a celebrity and the primary source is enough to verify they were in this episode. You might want to review the list to filter out people who were not celebrities (=famous for work that was not Dr. Who) when the serial in question was produced but that is no reason to delete everything. So#Why ^{review me!} 22:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, SoWhy, is the point of this list then to indicate people who are considered famous? With regards Doctor Who, what is the link between their fame and the show? How does this add to our understanding of the series when minor characters already have a number of lists already dedicated to them? Alastairward (talk) 11:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to comment No, it isn't, I have not said so. The Wikipedia articles about those people should indicate whether they are to be considered famous by their own right rather than because of their work with Dr. Who. So I think we need to weed out those who were a.) not famous at the time of the serial in question or b.) were famous due to being in Dr. Who (you wouldn't for example see Peter Davison on that list). But if they were/are famous, as indicated by their Wikipedia entries (which in turn have to cite sources anyway!) then they should be on that list. Also, you can get the relevant information from the serial's entries, like for example Voyage of the Damned for Kylie Minogue. The list serves the purpose to easily identify the celebrity appearances and is thus viable. Btw, I know that WP:OSE is not really a valid point but I think List of guest stars on The Simpsons would have to be nominated for AfD as well if this AfD was to be considered a valid attempt. So#Why ^{review me!} 07:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to comment, SoWhy, I only asked, I never suggested I was putting words in your mouth. With regards the Simpsons episode, I don't have all day (unfortunately!) to dedicate to Wikipedia, and mostly clean up or edit articles I'm interested in. Besides which, this list isn't even just guest appearances but "Celebrity and notable" guest appearances, which adds a bit of personal bias to the mix. It would make more sense if it was a simple list of guest appearances, but even that is quite unwieldy and of dubious notability as an article in its own right.Alastairward (talk) 11:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to comment Sorry then, it sounded like it. My mistake! First off, noone wants you to do it and let me say thank you for all of us for your work. Cleanup is tedious but someone needs to do it and it's great you are doing it. Then, secondly, I think WP:OSE is not much of an argument anyway, I was just pointing it out. So yes, you are correct that the list needs to be cleaned from all entries of "dubious notability" (that's what I said anyway) but not deleted :-) So#Why ^{review me!} 14:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup- SoWhy makes some good points. It can be weeded out to remove the extra fluff, but this article in no way merits deletion. Umbralcorax (talk) 03:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete - I guess the question is notable to whom? Until that is defined it is meerly an editor's point of view who is notable Fasach Nua (talk) 09:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as before, this is mostly a list of actors who were in the show, and were also in other things. No distinction is made between ordinary actors who applied for various roles, and established celebrities carefully chosen for their star value - this happened a lot in the show in the eighties, but no distinction is made here. Chuck out all the jobbing actors and transfer what's left to relevant episode/season articles. Totnesmartin (talk) 20:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article may need cleaning up and referencing. But I see no arguement here that it shouldn't exist. Nfitz (talk) 22:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - needs cleaning up and references, but I think there is some worth to the article. A year or so ago, I spent a long time improving it - building tables, etc. - before that it was a largely an illegible list. I gave up on the article myself because I became unsure how one can judge fame and notability in individual cases. Wider discussion is needed. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 02:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "Famous actor Y about to appear in the next episode of TV Show X" is exactly the sort of thing that people write about, so at least in principle this passes Wikipedia:Notability; if individual entries are questionable, that's not a reason to delete the whole list. --GRuban (talk) 18:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. However, perhaps a retitling of the article to something along the lines of "List of Guest Actors/Celebrities" rather than notable. Things like Only Fools and Horses, Emmerdale are well regarded programmes (in terms of awards/popularity), but there are people who may not know the significance of the theatre only actors (since more people watch tv in general than go to the theatre). Also, some of the tv programmes, such as Sooty, are questionable, as Sooty is aimed at viewers who are considerably younger than readers of this article (and therefore watchers of Sooty would not be interested in this). Also some of the "appearances" are questionable, some last less than 2 minutes (Paul O'Grady for example), whereas some of the appearances are considerably longer than that, and in the case of the Classic (pre 2005) serials, may appear in more than one episode. I think the problem is mainly to do with notable, one person's view of notable may vary than another's. If a blanket title is applied, then there is no need for deletion. Also, if you have seen someone in an episode, and you know you have seen them in something else (come on we've all had that) then this list is extremely handy rather than searching 101 links to find what you have seen that particular person in.Garej (talk) 20:41, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If someone is a celebrity, how do you WP:PROVEIT? Fasach Nua (talk) 10:04, 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 without prejudice to recreation. PhilKnight (talk) 18:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Digital citizenship

Previously prod'd, notice removed by article creator. Seems to be amalgamation of original research designed to promote book by author with very similar name to that of article creator. Hunting dog (talk) 13:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination; a non-notable neologism with an agenda. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As a mixture of original research and synthesis. TN‑X-Man 18:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my PROD, nom and above comments. FreplySpang 21:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Though some reasons for deletion might be correct, this concept of Digital Citizenship is notable as you can see doing a small research on any search-engine or library index, and a page on it should exist. I suggest to improve text but keep the page. --Casdeiro (talk) 09:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Consisting mostly of original research and synthesis.Poltair (talk) 10:44, 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. Shereth 17:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IRCD-Hybrid

Page has no verifiable, notable sources, and has been tagged as such since May 2008 Braindigitalis (talk) 14:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, project is dead upstream, and no longer notable even on EFnet (has been replaced with ratbox on all but 2 servers). --nenolod (talk) (edits) 20:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.189.74.62 (talk) [reply]

If it's dead upstream does not make it any more or less notable. Additionally, last I looked, efnet still uses it on six servers, which, is also irrelevant. SQL ^{Query me!} 20:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's with notable sources? They're not required, and, I'd say that while the three links back to hyb's svn or site, are plenty reliable in the context that they are used. I'll try to work on this, instead of deleting it. SQL ^{Query me!} 20:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I've added several references, from many different places, and, might go back and add another dozen or so later. It is very very very easy to find references for this article due to how widespread ircd-hybrid is used, and, how popular it is / has been. Therefore, Keep. SQL ^{Query me!} 20:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think maybe many of these ircd pages should be merged. Many of them cite the same references showing their shared heritage which to me says that a single longer article is maybe more fitting than a seperate page for each, if the article is to be kept at all? Brain Digitalis ^{(Talk) (Edits)} 21:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, I think (as someone who's worked with a lot of these extensively) they are sufficiently different, to warrant separate articles (except maybe ircd-ratbox / ircd-hybrid / oftc-hybrid and maybe comstud... Those are pretty darn similar, and, are just branches of each other). Either way, this article now has stacks of reliable, verifiable sources, and, dozens more could be added with great ease. I do not think a deletion discussion is the right place to figure out how/where/why to flesh out/expand/force-merge the article, and, I still believe that at this point in time, there is not a good reason to delete this article. SQL ^{Query me!} 01:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I believe WP:Notable sources are required. Brain Digitalis ^{(Talk) (Edits)} 14:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is still no such thing as notable sources. SQL ^{Query me!} 20:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, the nominator started two AFD's on this article in parallel. Below are the comments from the other one, which, I have redirected here. SQL ^{Query me!} 20:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, project is dead upstream, and no longer notable even on EFnet (has been replaced with ratbox on all but 2 servers). --nenolod (talk) (edits) 20:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed above, also a duplicate comment now. SQL ^{Query me!} 20:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:43, 7 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, No one has left a comment since the article's improvement, ergo I'm relisting it. Wizardman 14:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, nom's reasoning no longer applies. -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 20:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Encyclopedic data--Puttyschool (talk) 20:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no assertion or evidence that this piece of software is in any way significant or notable. Certainly there is nothing to establish notability in the many references used in the article. --Stormie (talk) 01:15, 15 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, in the light of the late found sources, it is found notable. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2150 AD

Unreferenced book by author that doesn't even have her own article. If the author doesn't have an article, why should the book? Also fails WP:N with no reliable sources. Closest thing to a source I could find was a review.(EDIT)Wiki software blocked it as a spam link. Not sure if it is, but I had to unlink it. If you want me to send you the link, leave me a message on my talk page. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 19:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This could possibly speedied as WP:IAR in my opinion. The author is a red link, so why should the book have a page, indeed. Furthermore, the only source that could be found is a blacklisted hyperlink. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 19:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: No opinion, but I disagree that if there's no article on an author, there should be no article on a book. WP:BLP1E would apply, a book might be notable, whereas the author might not be, just because they wrote a notable book. I hope we don't run around creating articles on every author that ever wrote a single notable book. Corvus cornix_talk 21:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The book has apparently had multiple printings by a genuine publisher; nonetheless only 63 libraries hold it, according to worldCat. Checking to see what else the author has written, & reading the article more carefully, it appears she's the leader of what can best be described as a cult philosophy built around the book. A few such people have been-- in my opinion unfortunately--very notable, so there is just a remote chance she might be notable, though I have so far found no real sources. The book certainly is not. I'd oppose turning this into an article on the person unless someone can find an actual RS. The only real time an author is not notable but a single book is would be a first book from someone who has published nothing else important; I don't think there will be many such--if the book is that important people write about the author also. DGG (talk) 01:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the book was published by a major publisher and it's quite probable that it has some degree of notability. Google searches shouldn't be considered definitive for a book published in the 1970s. Everyking (talk) 09:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DGG. Also, if the author isn't notable (which she appears not to be), it's most unlikely the book is. Biruitorul ^Talk 03:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - for whats its worth...book is cited here. And here. And here. And here. and there are numerous web hits, though most of them web logs. As for the idea that the author doesn't have a WP article therefore the work is unnotable, that doesn't matter in the slightest, so I don't know why it is even being brought up. However, even the author gets numerous hits on a broad search. I have no idea who she is, nor am I particularly interested in the book, or the New Age, creepy cult, self help guru, what-have-you, material circulating around her, but apparently others are and this book seems to often be the attractant. Clear keep, but the article needs to be properly cited. --Trippz (talk) 10:12, 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, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The sources presented by Trippz seem good enough to establish notability to me. --Explodicle (T/C) 18:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
weak Keep Sourcing is weaker than I'd like, but people are citing it so probably notable. Hobit (talk) 21:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sources found by Trippz appear to provide notability in my opinion. --Captain-tucker (talk) 19:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the information cited by Trippz; the article needs improvement but the notability is there. RFerreira (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 Speedy delete g11, advertising, part of group of related articles. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strawberry Hills Hotel

While the notion of jazz-filled nights and "cheap eats" sound wonderful, we have to acknowledge that this Australian venue does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards and appears to fail WP:ORG. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:56, 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) 18:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ricky Boleto

Delete nn very minor tv presenter all GHITS are blogs, or primary sources Mayalld (talk) 12:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree, I can't find any independent reliable sources - all blogs and twitter.com and his employers. May be notable one day, but not yet. JohnCD (talk) 16:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - trivial coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 18:19, 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 deleted (G7) at author's request. Papa November (talk) 10:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Foundation for Reflection Woods

Delete nn organisation. Only 3 GHITS, all self published Mayalld (talk) 12:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Author requested deletion. Speedy deleted under category G7. Papa November (talk) 10:13, 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 as he fails WP:ATHLETE. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 23:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robbie Lawton

Contested PROD by IP user with no explantion as to why. Player fails notability at WP:ATHLETE having never played in a fully professional league/competition. --Jimbo^[online] 12:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Bettia (rawr CRUSH!) 14:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:FOOTYN easily too. Bettia (rawr CRUSH!) 14:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. But does it? According to WP:FOOTYN one is notable if one has " played for a fully professional club at a national level of the league structure ". Lawton plays for Altrincham F.C. in Conference National. Conference National is at the national level of the league structure (unlike Conference North and Conference South. Some teams in Conference National are full-time professional - but is Altrincham F.C.? (I have my doubts given their normal position at the bottom of the league.) It may fail WP:FOOTYN but it certainly isn't an easy fail. Nfitz (talk) 18:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Alty are a part-time club. WP:FOOTYN is just a WikiProject guideline, the notability policy set is at WP:ATHLETE. --Jimbo^[online] 20:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 20:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - He has played against professional teams in the FA Cup, such as QPR. He may not have played for a professional club (debatable) but he is still one of the main squad members, being the captain. There are many other pages on players who are his age, playing at the same level who rarely get a game. The only reason they aren't up for deletion is that they have been with a professional team in the past, for maybe just one season, hardly get a game yet because they were with the pro. club the article was allowed to stay. E.g. Danny Potter or Lewis Killeen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.9.160.127 (talk) 21:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Potter fails notability, perhaps you should PROD the article or start the AfD. Killeen has played in a fully professional league, so he passes. Plenty of non-league clubs play professional teams in the FA Cup, this does not confer notability. --Jimbo^[online] 22:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment What I am trying to say is that he is a main member of the Altrincham squad being captain and playing many games, were as other players have only played one game for a pro. side and then maybe a max. of 25 games for a non-pro. side. Those players are not very notable were as Robbie is. 92.12.217.42 (talk) 10:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant delete - borderline, but that's what borders are for. Altrincham, Caernarfon and Vauxhall are all semi-pro sides, according to their websites. Grutness...wha? 02:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another reluctant delete. Doesn't meet WP:ATHLETE, WP:FOOTYN, or WP:BIO. Nfitz (talk) 06:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 11:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:ATHLETE, as he has not played in a fully professional league. Giants2008 (17-14) 21:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fuck you

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

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

The result was Delete, not really speedy since it was relisted but quite evidently snow.. TravellingCari 01:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clickthinking

Company is notable enough to pass CSD, however, obvious COI, I think this should be deleted, but recerated by someone who is not with the company Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak ~~keep~~Delete - ~~I see it passes WP:N and WP:COMPANY, but not WP:NPOV. I don't think it should be deleted because it is in a POV COI, but it should just be reworded.~~ Eh, fails WP:COI and WP:NPOV.--S_RX 12:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. WP:COI is the issue for me here - it is essentially promotional. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:COI -- Darth Mike _(Talk _{• Contribs)} 12:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not just because of COI and spammy wording, but because the assertions of notability are incredibly weak and the verifiability of those assertions is weak to non-existent (calling an award prestigious doesn't make it so). --Orange Mike | Talk 13:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and suggest speedy delete as blatantly written in spam style. They offer strategic and web-based solutions. Can I get fries with that? - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete G11 as spam. Would require fundamental rewrite to become encyclopedic. Fits the bill, I think. RayAYang (talk) 16:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, highly promotional wording. Off! (talk) 13:43, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Locobot (talk) 01:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reason to change my vote - why was it not deleted? --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hey you forgot to strike your original comment! Okay, I'm contacting NawlinWiki. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article fails to establish notability as prescribed at WP:COMPANY. Article is commercial promotion rather than written in an objective, independent style. Not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a trade directory. Dolphin51 (talk) 12:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:52, 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. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 03:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All Knowing Force

Unreferenced, orphaned article about what appears to be a local NYC radio show which also features some podcasted content. Having difficulty finding any references via Google News. No mention of syndication or anything else that would help the case of notability on official website. Claims of firsts in article are also unreferenced and may be original research. Is this show notable? Rtphokie (talk) 11:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note. This article was deleted July 23rd based on an unchallenged prod, but was recreated August 4th. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 19:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - trivial coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 18:16, 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 (G12 - copyright violation) by Peripitus. Nonadmin close. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 12:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The form of intention known as dolus eventualis in criminal law

Already covered at Intention (criminal). Merge good content from this article then delete? —CycloneNimrod^T@lk? 11:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as copyvio of this tagged as such Mayalld (talk) 11:57, 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 No consensus (non-admin closure); notability remains contentious. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 08:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PIAS Entertainment Group

Delete non notable company Mayalld (talk) 11:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Company has only 70 GHITS, most of which appear to be directories, incidental mentions, or blogs Mayalld (talk) 14:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't know how you see Ghits but the site pias.com has 1500 websites linking to it (according to a link: pias.com Google search) It’s maybe not a huge public brand compared to other commercial sectors; record companies logos only appear on the back of the CDs and common people might not bother about it. But music lovers do and it's still the main European independent record company and, to my knowledge, (and according to the universal website[29]) the only European independent distribution network. Having articles about the majors but refusing to publish information about an independent is not a good move I think. siouxsy (talk) 10:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment GHITS means how many hits you get on google, EXCLUDING hits on Wikipedia, sites associated with the company, myspace, directory sites, blogs etc. Mayalld (talk) 10:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Do you have ANY knowledge of independent record companies, other than the "GHITS" that showed up in your search? NEver yer PAL (talk) 12:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have yet to impart any of your own knowledge in this discussion. PC78 (talk) 10:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep notable company NEver yer PAL (talk) 12:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 14:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For crying out loud. Can the pair of you please demonstrate (i.e., by providing some sort of evidence) how this subject is either notable or not notable. PC78 (talk) 14:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One cannot prove a negative. I can only offer my regrets that my stalker appears to have arrived at this AfD Mayalld (talk) 14:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you can (and should); how does the article fail relevant notability guidelines? Have you searched for sources? What were your findings? The onus is really on you to demonstrate how the subject is not notable, and why the article should be deleted. PC78 (talk) 14:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Info on GHITS added Mayalld (talk) 14:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge with Play It Again Sam (record label), or merge and redirect that label here. A highly notable company, easily meets the "heard of it before seeing the Wikipedia article" test. My favorite PIAS record is Il Canto di Malavita, a collection of folk music by organized criminals in Calabria. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep PIAS is the biggest independent record company representing artists as: Soulwax, Morcheeba, Editors, Mogwai , Sigur Ros, Reverend and the Makers,Miossec, Grace Jones, Infadels, Futureheads…. And much more.

I created this page as the Play It Again Sam (record label) page was making confusion mixing information about the group (distributor) and the label (I still have to clean the label page) . - siouxsy 16:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete notability not asserted Toddst1 (talk) 17:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete for non-notability. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 22:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per siouxsy 16 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.87.17.46 (talk) 07:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable. Schmidt (talk) 05:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~There are hundreds if not thousands of fine record companies with similar or better track records.~~ Publishing music by notable artists does not confer notabilty upon the company, as notabilty is not inherited.[30] What major awards has it won? What scholasrships has it established? What trends has it established? What makes it so particiularly special? Schmidt (talk) 06:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think you are mixing subjects, we are not talking about a record labels but about an international distribution group, I don’t think that there are hundred of them. To my knowledge, PIAS is the only European independent network.siouxsy (talk) 17:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Okay... I have struck my numbers because I do not know how many other companies compete in their market. However, my vote stands, as notability is still not inherited. You have a few external links, but you've left the article unsourced. Notability has not been established. Your best bet is to go through the article line by line and see if you can cite the statements. Simply offering EL's does not do it. If this were RCA Records or Sony Music Entertainment there'd be little question of notability. Show how PIAS is notable as their smaller cousin. And trust me... using their official sites [31][32] does not do it, as they are primary sources and can not be expected to be neutral about themselves. The Wall of Sound and FCom link do not show notablilty. I am not going to do your job for you.... but I just did a google search. I have no idea of the value of these links, but you may wish to find ways to use these secondary sources to improve the article: [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39]. They ball is in your court (and just adding them as external links does not show their value as sources or prove notability for PIAS EG). Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:32, 12 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) 18:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Skycoasters

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Majorclanger (talk) 11:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently fails notability requirement for bands - local "party" band for which I could not find "multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable" Majorclanger (talk) 11:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A7 speedy delete - no assertion of notability, and a quick search didn't turn anything up. --Amalthea^Talk 20:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. PhilKnight (talk) 18:15, 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 Merge and redirect (non-admin closure). --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 05:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Labrat Camilla and Stav

This is just a non-notable breakfast radio program, possibly station-produced spam. Grahame (talk) 11:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 11:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to B105 FM as everyone listens to Nova 106.9.--Sting Buzz Me... 11:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article doesn't establish notability, no third party sources cited. - Shiftchange (talk) 01:35, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No references = no article --Lester 20:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to B105 FM after chopping out the fansite material, doesn't meet notability or verifiability. - Dravecky (talk) 07:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to B105 FM, couldn't put it any better than Dravecky.--Rtphokie (talk) 13:45, 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 Dalgety Bay. Found no valid content to merge. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 03:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dalgety Bay Parish Church

Non notable, no secondary sources and I think we're being trolled by the user. See [40], regardless, I'll let you all handle it. Here is a link to his other nom for deletion [41] and then there's this [42]. Drunken Pirate (talk) 08:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Dalgety Bay HeartofaDog (talk) 12:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Tell's you about a church. Tharnton345 (talk) 13:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The problem with your statement is that you have no knowledge about Wikipedia policies. Please keep in mind that this is a discussion to establish a consensus, not a vote. Please include sources or anything else that would make this church notable and people might decide to keep it. Tavix (talk) 18:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a non-notable church. Nothing has happened here to make it more notable then the billions of other churches across the world. Tavix (talk) 18:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was opened in 1962 by Queen Elizabeth II. Tharnton345 (talk) 19:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where is your proof of this? The year it opened has nothing to do with notability unless it is a historical site for example. Tavix (talk) 20:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sadly, it does not appear to be notable. I'm sure it'a fun place though... but Wikipedia is not a church directory.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacks the sources to meet WP:N and doesn't seem a significant landmark or tourist attraction. TerriersFan (talk) 21:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Dalgety Bay. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Dalgety Bay: that article (largely historical) indicates that it was a new town. The church was evidently built as part of the community facilities of the new town. The church does not deserve an article of its own, but would make a good start for an expansion of the town article to show what it is like today. As with primary schools, I think this will be generally be a good solution for the church articles that frequently come up for AFD. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Dalgety Bay may have a new town, but it is not entirely a new town... --MacRusgail (talk) 13:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Dalgety Bay.--MacRusgail (talk) 13:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the times of their services are of no interest to anyone outside a 5 mile radius. definitely not notable. Toyokuni3 (talk) 03:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - trivial coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 18:15, 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 Keep (non-admin closure), I nominated this article, but there seems to be a clear consensus to keep, and I am convinced by the arguments presented. Slashme (talk) 07:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daybreak (2008 indie film)

Indie film released in 2008, hasn't won any prizes. Many reviews online, but I don't see how that makes it notable. Slashme (talk) 11:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 14:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I'm not sure how reliable the sources are, but plenty of coverage certainly tends to suggest notability. PC78 (talk) 14:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article is well written and sourced. Many films have notabilty that never won a prize. And since it was released only this year... even that could change. Schmidt (talk) 05:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Hello. I am the creator of the Daybreak article. I still believe that Wikipedia editors are intelligent and talented individuals and surely most of us (at least those who fully and truly understand the rules of Wikipedia as an online encyclopedia) will not create an article that is of low importance and isn't notable, so to speak. Daybreak is one of the best indie films ever released in the Philippines and it is still under current reviews as it was released only this year. In the Philippines, films of this kind are often brought as entry to various International Film Festivals such as the Cannes' or CineManila. In fact, one or two of the movies directed by Adolfo Alix, Jr. have already competed and won prizes in Europe and local media are expecting Daybreak to be this year's top choice. Since Daybreak is a young film, please let us give it a chance to earn its share of accolades in the coming months. I am a young editor from the Philippines trying to contribute and share my passion as a writer to the Wikipedia. You guys know more than I do so if you think this article should be deleted, then I will not stand on your way. Just give me a fair and reasonable explanation when you do so as not to waste my efforts for contributing here now and in the future. Like what I've said, final decision is yours. Thank you. Renante Beron (talk) 01:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it looks as if the consensus here is to keep the article, so don't worry! --Slashme (talk) 07:55, 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. Wizardman 01:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abraham Falcon

WP:NN. PROD contested by author. Ian¹³ /t 11:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The linked article ( in Spanish ) is to a reputable newspaper El Comercio (Peru) and is non-trival (3-4 pages, all about the guy and his work ), it says he at one point was the third best guitar maker in the world, need a better argument in you are going to claim non-notable Drunken Pirate (talk) 20:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:54, 6 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, --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 05:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean-up - significant coverage in a Spanish reference. PhilKnight (talk) 10:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Short as the article is, and ancient as his notable feats are, he was still mentioned in a notable source. I believe it counts for something. Lady Galaxy 21:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notability is language independent --T-rex 01:08, 13 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 Jackson's Submission Fighting, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines but is an appropriate redirect. Davewild (talk) 18:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gaidojutsu

Non notable art tagged for 2 years for sources, claims lots of notable fighters but no sources. Nate1481(^t/_c) 10:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- Nate1481(^t/_c) 10:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm not sure that outstanding issues are any more of a reason for deletion two years down the road than the day they were first pointed out. It certainly doesn't appear to be a hoax. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 11:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it was notable I would have expected to see a source by now. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 11:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pn yet another spam article RogueNinja_talk 14:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jackson's Submission Fighting, which is notable. JJL (talk) 18:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jackson's Submission Fighting. This article says nothing about the techniques of Gaidojutsu. jmcw (talk) 08:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jackson's Submission Fighting - trivial coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 18:11, 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 No Consensus to delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pirates II

Delete nn unreleased film, doesn't meet WP:NF Mayalld (talk) 10:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFF. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 10:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 14:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No case for non-notability made by nom. Film is in post production according to IMDb [43], so dosn't fail WP:NFF as such. I don't know what counts as a reliable source in the realm of adult entertainment, but a significant number of ghits strongly suggests notability [44]. PC78 (talk) 14:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Film in post-production. Distribution to begin. Don't know if Variety will review it... but it is already notable in the adult film trade. Gorzelak has a nice article about the film... AVN gave it a terrific review last month... the teaser trailer was shown at the AEE January 2007... Reuters published a press release... IGN reviewd it last July. Xbiz covered it. Heck... it is now being offered in pre-release. The G rated teaser/trailer is surprising. Notable? Yup. Schmidt (talk) 05:48, 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. Wizardman 18:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Long Rocker (Album)

This is a debut album that has not yet charted, on a label that is still redlinked. Surely not yet notable. Slashme (talk) 10:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:MUSIC says it's not notable at all, and besides that, it makes no assertion of notability. In the unlikely event it is notable, the author really must assert it. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 10:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back into Kemman for failing to establish notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums: "articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article". Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 13:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both the album and Kemman. I see no proof that the band meets notability guidelines per WP:MUSIC, and if they don't, then their album doesn't either. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 15:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - trivial coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 10:42, 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. Keeper ǀ 76 16:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MultiLoad

Unreferenced article which does not assert notabilty -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 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 Keep, sources have been added to establish notability. Davewild (talk) 18:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crichton Leprechaun

AfDs for this article:

Does not appear to meet the notability guideline for WP:WEB. Unsourced since creation, with the exception (if you can call it a published source) of embedded external links to YouTube and sites dedicated to the Mobile Leprechaun that were prompted by the YouTube video. Altairisfar _talk 09:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into List of Internet phenomena. This is not notable or particularly significant on its own, really, but it would make a great addition as an (unlinked) entry there. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 09:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Delete~~*Keep See Dravecky's post. Drunken Pirate (talk) 20:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable. Everyking (talk) 07:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep and I'd ask any editor to review the article as it stands now since I have cleaned it up, expanded it, and added several reliable third-party sources in the last hour or so. This phenomenon (both the apparition and the aftermath) received coverage in regional media plus The New York Times, the Sunday Mirror, the International Herald-Tribune and other reliable sources that strongly prove notability and other sources speak to verifiability as well. - Dravecky (talk) 07:53, 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) 18:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Foresta

A targetted Google for either the character or the actor produce no results. Hoax? ➨ REDVERS in a car - no brakes? I don't mind 08:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete was about to tag this as a hoax, like the editor's previous creation. Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 08:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, ec'd with you on adding Ilex Marrow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to this AfD. Consider it now added :o) ➨ REDVERS in a car - no brakes? I don't mind 08:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is about a character in a soap opera; it's certainly not notable. I'd like to speedy it under A7, but it doesn't quite fit. As an adjunct, however, please note the massive number of articles on characters in the same soap (see List of Home and Away characters). --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 08:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are huge numbers of character articles, but this one is actually a hoax. Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 09:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Search for sources leads me to believe this is a blatant hoax. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 21:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I too could not find any sources to verify this article's contents. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Your deletionist attitude really irks me with regard to this article. This article has 43 google hits including many notable sites. I try to be reasonable, but the deletionist cabal offends me sometimes. Testmasterflex (talk)
  - That's the first time I've ever been called a deletionist. Anyway, I'm always open to changing my mind, but could you be specific with regards to the sources? I searched Google again and the first three that turn up are Facebook, Wikipedia, and some salesperson. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The sheer irony of this situation had me laughing on the ground and gasping for breath for a second. Thank you God for showing that the world has a sense of humor :p sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 06:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Me of all people being designated a deletionist may be one of the signs of the apocalypse... --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I have no opinion at all with regard to this AfD, but I also laughed out loud at this characterization of LGRdC. Deor (talk) 03:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable per WP:RSTestmasterflex (talk) 04:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no non-trivial coverage by reliable sources independent of the topic to assert notability, nor any sources to verify the article's contents or prove that it's not a hoax. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 07:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Call WP:RS all you want, too bad there are none Sui get su 22:18, 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 keep per WP:SNOW. The last AfD closed two months ago, and I can't see consensus changing that fast, especially given that the previous AfD was a rather clear keep. Most, if not all, of the nominator's cited problems can easily be fixed without bringing the deletion hammer down. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 15:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

American patriotic music

AfDs for this article:

All this issues from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American patriotic music still exist fails WP:OR, WP:NPOV,WP:Cite ,WP:SYN and WP:V .Their has only been 4 [45] non tagging edits to the text since the last AFD. The article was kept to give a chance for improvement this has not occurred Gnevin (talk) 07:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This may not be the greatest article or the best possible treatment of this particular topic. But this is definitely a topic that needs to be covered in an encyclopedia. Problems with the article should be dealt with through normal editing rather than by deletion. I don't think this article has significant problems with original research or verifiability; while not everyone agrees about what constitutes American patriotic music, some songs, such as "America the Beautiful" and "God Bless America", would be generally accepted selections as such. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Given that loads of wikipedia projects that deal with the aforementioned issues are backlogged over one year or 10000 articles, it's a bit much to ask that those issues be finished in a month's time. Technically, pretty well every article in this encyclopedia is kept for improvement, anyway :) --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 08:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The shortcomings cited by the nom should be fixed by article improvement and are not sufficient for article deletion. There's already enough there that's reliably sourced to verify the subject's encyclopedic value. As Falcon DK says, more improvement will come with time, as with many once-stub articles that are now GA! JGHowes ^talk - 11:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Two months is too soon to renominate an article for AFD, especially if there's been stated intent to improve it and a strong Keep decision. If it hasn't been improved by the end of the year, then let's talk. And even then AFD should not be used to spur improvement of an article. The purpose of AFD is to decide the suitability and viability of articles. IMO there's no doubt that this is a suitable topic. 23skidoo (talk) 12:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added some refs from the Library of Congress Performing Arts Encyclopedia, which discusses American Patriotic songs in general as well as having a well documented article on each one. Additional reliable sources were listed in the first AFD which show the notability of the topic and prove that resources exist for improvement of the article. Someone's arbitrary time limit for perfection of or improvement of an article is not a valid basis for deletion. Any original research or unverified claims can be removed. Each song in the LOC listing of American patriotic songs is quite well documented as such. AFD is not a substitute for editing. Edison (talk) 14:41, 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 no consensus. Sorry, I can't make heads or tails of this. Some say it's not duplicating, some say it is, others still say that's a good thing. I'd encourage a discussion on the article talk pages in regards to a merge or redirection, but that's largely outside the scope of AfD since it doesn't involve the big red button. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

County-level areas in the United Kingdom

Forks existing articles Counties of the United Kingdom and List of counties of the United Kingdom. Section 2 is a recreation of List of British Traditional Counties (Deleted by AFD here). All other information is already contained in other articles about local government in the United Kingdom and presented more coherently. MRSC • Talk 07:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because it duplicates existing content. Any substantial information not already present should be merged into History of local government in the United Kingdom or similar. Doesn't WP:FORK say something about this? --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 08:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; it does not replicate any article nor substantially any content. The information it contains is scattered about Wikipedia. Nowhere is there a single list of all British local government entities nor of all county-level areas. There are lists of "counties", but in local government terms this relates only to England. (The term "county level authorities" appears in "Counties of the United Kingdom", but without any list to refer to, yet.

The article did exist before as "List of counties of the United Kingdom" and as such it gained "This article has been rated as top-importance within the UK geography WikiProject". In spite of that rating the entire text was then deleted and replaced by User:MRSC. His or her stated reason was that the name was wrong as it contained things other than counties. Very well; here is a list of county-level entities of all sorts and described as such.

Yesterday User:MRSC without explanation deleted the entire text of the article when I created it as Counties and similar areas in the United Kingdom‎ and turned it into a divert to another article without going through the AfD protocols. Today the same one user is hitting it again, inaccurately describing it as a fork or duplication.

Local government is in this land is not as disorganized as the information hidden scattered across Wikipedia might suggest.

For those who do not spend all their time haunting Wikipedia, a map is the first port of call. Maps do not distinguish between the different sorts of county-level entity (and they do not throw everywhere in Wales under the bottom of the heap so that England's places can go on top of the list either). The article provides a guide to what appears on the map.

As for section 2, that was taken from a deleted article I found (and tidid up), but that article was deleted for reasons specific to that article not applicable here.

LG02 (talk) 12:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of counties of the United Kingdom. Merge any content not already in the target article. --Polaron | Talk 16:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Jza84 | Talk 19:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons already given. Any useful information not included in other articles can be saved and incorporated into the most relevant already-existing articles. DDStretch (talk) 20:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of counties of the United Kingdom, as a duplicate of existing content. (It sounds as if the traditional counties brigade are back again.) It may be necessary to protect the redirects to avoid recreation. --RFBailey (talk) 21:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, but it is an article on the structure of local government past and present. What has that to do with the trad counties people you seem to hate so much?

LG02 (talk) 08:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We already have articles on that topics: see Local government in the United Kingdom. Why not concentrate on improving those rather than creating new ones which split related content all over the place? Also, please read WP:AGF: you shouldn't accuse people of "hating" anyone. --RFBailey (talk) 14:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The information on this article has been scattered Bad Wolf fashion across Wiki. We need to bring the info together, which I believe this article (and the connected others) is attempting to do. doktorb _words^deeds 21:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect like others suggested above. This will subsequently bring the info together, which motivated the keep right above Stijndon (talk) 20:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect poor repeat of Counties of the United Kingdom --T-rex 01:07, 13 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 Deductive reasoning. PhilKnight (talk) 18:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Epistematics

Inscrutable stub that seems to be an essay/neologism/original research. The only reference is an equally impenetrable (to me, at least) paper by one Chiara Carlino, who I believe to be the article's creator: User:C Chiara. Others raised the same concerns about this article back in 2007. Reyk _YO! 07:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to deductive reasoning. As the opposite of inductive reasoning, it is definitionally identical to deductive reasoning and is therefore redundant. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 08:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as Falcon Kirtaran suggests. Having had a skim through the linked paper, I can't see what distinguishes epistematic reasoning from deductive reasoning, which given the article's creator suggests this article may just be an excuse to publicise his/her paper on the subject. Possibly the paper has some useful information in itself, I'm no expert on the topic - but certainly it seems this article is never going to be anything but a substantial duplication of deductive reasoning. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 17:39, 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 this list is not notable and without reliable sources. Davewild (talk) 17:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Animaniacs gag credits

Non notable list. No sources at all. It could all be made up for all I know. Looks like original research. Delete Undeath (talk) 05:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The list is not significant, and all other information in this page is already in Animaniacs.
Delete transwiki if possible. JuJube (talk) 07:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is no necessity for having two different pages on same topic either merge or delete. Kalivd (talk) 07:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources could possibly verify this info. Lots of cartoons used gag credits (The Angry Beavers, for one). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 15:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this unreferenced listcruft. Cliff smith ^talk 02:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article is original research, it doesn't have third-party, relible sources. --Kanonkas : Talk 16:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Save It! The artice is NOT just original research. One of the most complete unofficial guides to WB cartoons of the 1990's, especially Animaniacs, has all this information and it is correct. I believe the address is "http://www2.cruzio.com/~keeper/AHEM.txt". I would, however, add the other information from aforesaid address if I was going to leave the article.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Even if it's all true, this is not a notable list. All the information can be found on the animaniacs article. We don't need this list. Undeath (talk) 04:29, 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 keep. PhilKnight (talk) 10:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Silesian Offensives

Synthesys — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrg3105 (talk • contribs) 04:16, 5 August 2008

I have removed the sources because one does not mention either offensive while the other mentions them in list-form by name only. Essentially the article is a synthesis of the two earlier-edited separate articles. In that line of thinking all consecutive offensives can be grouped into one big European offensives of the Second World War or US Army campaigns in France, or Germany campaigns of World War II, however, that is why there are divisions in military history such as Theaters, Military campaigns, operations, etc. The offensives in question had completely different objectives, and although carried out by the same Front in same geographic area, one was directed south-west, while the other, directed north-west separated by the 120km section of front which was the Siege of Breslau. To even suggest that these operations were related means never having to have looked at a map--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 22:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - ~~I'm very confused by this nom. There doesn't appear to be a policy called WP:CWORK, or even WP:WORK~~. Furthermore, the article has references and appears notable by all standards (ignoring the fact that it is a battle in WWII). If the nominator could provide some more information, that would be helpful. Leonard^(Bloom) 05:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Surely you're looking for WP:CFORK? --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 05:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm not sure how this violates WP:CFORK, which is a guideline in any case; I wish Mrg3015 explained why this is so bad and what it is a fork of. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 05:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leonard^Bloom & Falcon Kirtaran, please note change in reason for deletion and of the removal of "references"--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 08:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Where is the need to have a summary stub for two operations linked only by the one word "Silesian" in the titles? The stub adds nothing, and the references are only generally related to the operations. Even on those rare occasions in military history when they are grouped, that is done with other relevant offensives, such as the East Pomeranian Strategic Offensive Operation, so one would have to rename it Silesian-East Pomeranian operations, etc. The grouping is rarely used even in specialised literature--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 06:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge- this article was formerly prodded, reasoning being The article badly summarises two other existing articles Lower Silesian Offensive Operation and Upper Silesian Offensive Operation to which it adds nothing, thereby being surplus to requirement. I agree. Reyk _YO! 07:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was my fault. Apparently I was not supposed to prod it. There is no material to merge into the two other articles because this article is a synthesis of them--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 08:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No grounds to delete the article, which casts useful light on strategic and political considerations in the European Theater in the final months of World War II. Nihil novi (talk) 08:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. The citations and the idea about flanking should be merged into the other two articles, if true; I'd rather someone with knowledge of the topic merge facts here. I would, however, like to thank the person who gave us the full title of one of the books cited in the other two articles, instead of just the author's last name and a page number (which doesn't really identify a source in and of itself). --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 10:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What? The two references have almost nothing to do with the content of the article. Bevor mentions it briefly, while Glantz just names the operations in a list of other operations of 1945. The two operations have nothing in common other than the word "Silesia"!--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: just a thought but it seems to me that the two sub-articles – covering Lower Silesia and Upper Silesia operations – are also fairly stubby. Merging them into this one would create a reasonably comprehensive article, which could be broken out again if and when it has been suitably expanded and, more importantly, referenced. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 10:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Roger, if you look at the history of the three articles, you will see the following
Silesian Offensives - 05:01, 17 June 2007 Piotrus (Talk | contribs) (2,018 bytes) (ref stub about another important offensive) The reference provided mentions the two only once each, with no context.

Where did Piotrus get the rest of the article from? Notably this

Stalin's decision to delay the push towards Berlin from February to April has been a subject of some controversy among both the Soviet generals and military historians, with one side arguing that the Soviets had a chance of securing Berlin much quicker and with much lower losses in February, and the other arguing that the danger of leaving large German formations on the flanks could have resulted in a succesfull German counterattack and prolonged the war further.

If there was such a controversy, no doubt a citation could have been provided.

Instead

06:42, 19 March 2008 Eurocopter tigre adds "references" - Beevor's Berlin.

As it happens, Beevor doesn't mention either of the operations even once. What he does mention is "the defences of the Silesian capital, which Führer headquarters had declared to be `Fortress Breslau'"

Then ->

Lower Silesian Offensive Operation - 22:39, 20 March 2008 Esdrasbarnevelt
04:15, 1 April 2008 Piotrus "It was one of the two Silesian Offensives; the other one was the Upper Silesian Offensive Operation." (says who?)

Upper Silesian Offensive Operation - 03:44, 21 March 2008 Esdrasbarnevelt
04:15, 1 April 2008 Piotrus "It was one of the two Silesian Offensives; the other one was the Lower Silesian Offensive Operation." (says who?)

Why? Well because Piotrus was forever "tweaking" Danzig, and hence the East Pomeranian Offensive‎

04:22, 1 April 2008 (hist) (diff) m Battle of Danzig‎ (←Redirected page to Battle of Gdańsk (Danzig))
04:22, 1 April 2008 (hist) (diff) m Siege of Danzig‎ (←Redirected page to Battle of Gdańsk (Danzig))
04:22, 1 April 2008 (hist) (diff) m Talk:Sieges of Danzig‎ (moved Talk:Siege of Danzig (Gdańsk) to Talk:Battle of Gdańsk (Danzig): battle is more common; and modern name is Gdańsk)
04:22, 1 April 2008 (hist) (diff) m Sieges of Danzig‎ (moved Siege of Danzig (Gdańsk) to Battle of Gdańsk (Danzig): battle is more common; and modern name is Gdańsk)
04:22, 1 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Siege of Danzig (Gdańsk)‎ (moved Siege of Danzig (Gdańsk) to Battle of Gdańsk (Danzig): battle is more common; and modern name is Gdańsk)
04:21, 1 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Sieges of Danzig‎
04:21, 1 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Battle of Gdansk‎ (red)
04:21, 1 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Battle of Gdańsk‎ (red)
04:20, 1 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Sieges of Danzig‎
04:19, 1 April 2008 (hist) (diff) m Battle of Danzig‎ (←Redirected page to Siege of Danzig (Gdańsk))
04:19, 1 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Battle of Danzig‎ (red)
04:18, 1 April 2008 (hist) (diff) m Talk:East Prussian Offensive‎ (top) [rollback] [vandalism]
04:18, 1 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:East Pomeranian Offensive‎ (update)
04:17, 1 April 2008 (hist) (diff) m Talk:Kaunas Offensive Operation‎
04:16, 1 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:Upper Silesian Offensive Operation‎ (←Created page with '{{WPMILHIST|class=Start|German-task-force=yes|Russian-task-force=yes|WWII-task-force=yes}}')
04:16, 1 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:Lower Silesian Offensive Operation‎

Immediately on my AfD 19:28, 5 August 2008 Nihil novi starts editing furiously (see his user page that says Categories: WikiProject Poland participants!)

I wonder if it had anything to do with the two operations being the time when the Oder-Niesse line was restored?

The unreferenced nature of edits, which in the case of Battle of Gdańsk (Danzig) caused it to disappear altogether as an operation does not warrant retention or any form of salvage of this article.

The articles with the full titles are not "sub-articles". Piotrus added "It was one of the two Silesian Offensives; the other one was the Upper Silesian Offensive Operation." and authored the stub, although there is not a shred of evidence they were linked other than geographically, and by virtue of being performed by same front, but consecutively. There is no usage of "Silesian offensives" in military history literature either, anywhere. The two operations are not related other than by the word "Silesia". Instead of offering original research, the two actual operations should be expanded further, not merged into something completely made up--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 12:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No to mergers one way or other. A parent article to the two other offensives and a notable concept (mentioned for example here).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A "parent" article by definition usually comes before the "offspring" articles

Care to specify a page? For those interested, the book is about Red Army infantry divisions, and not military operations they participated in--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. —_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & make into disambiguation - cannot see how they are related (except for a similar name). The ref that Piotrus provided is the only result for Google Book search and specifically mentions "Lower and Upper Silesian Offensives" (cannot say in what context) and not generic "Silesian Offensives". Renata (talk) 18:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. By this logic, we should make WWII article into a disambig (after all, it discusses so many unrelated operations...). Silesian Offensives are a part of WWII history of Silesia and should be summarized in one article.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly do they have in common? and please show a source for that. Renata (talk) 22:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per cited source (see refs of the article), they were two consecutive offensives taking place in the same region. But for the 3 months of lull in between, they could be seen as one offensive. It makes perfect sense to have an article describing the offensives in one place, and subarticles for each of the two, and then ones for the battle... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The argument for deletion is extremely weak - I don't understand why it was nominated for deletion. Ecoleetage (talk) 20:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There never were "Silesian offensives", just synthesis--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 22:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Ecoleetage and Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus --Poeticbent talk 22:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The deletion argument is pretty weak, and I don't see how this violates WP:CFORK. Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 23:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually its synthesis, but synthesis is not included in the deletion although strongly rejected by policy. Synthesis is the opposite of forking--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 22:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I've yet to see any notable tradition in the historiography of grouping these as the 'Silesian Offensives'. They are linked geographically, and by being carried out by Konev's forces, but as has been pointed out were separated by some time, by several German offensive attempts (Operation Gemse) and by differing tactical objectives. Their relationship to each other is already made clear enough by the individual articles (which I created some time ago) and by the related articles on the Vistula-Oder Offensive etc.

The main English sources for these offensives (other than memoirs of the participants) are still Duffy and Glantz, neither of whom make any use of the concept of the 'Silesian Offensives' as far as I'm aware. Esdrasbarnevelt (talk) 08:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as an important subcategory of Eastern Front (World War II). greg park avenue (talk) 21:23, 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 delete. Wizardman 13:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Galerie Chappe

Google searches turn up no substantive sources for this business—just a Myspace page, other social-networking pages, and some mentions by exhibiting artists. I can't verify the claimed connection with an art seller of the 1950s (the Google Books hits for an older business are for a Galerie Chappe-Laurier, in Toulouse rather than Paris). Seems to fail WP:N. Deor (talk) 03:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete From this search, the hits are generally from blog and myspace sites as nominator notes. No WP:RS to establish the subjects notability. Artene50 (talk) 04:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - trivial coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 10:36, 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, snow, for all the reasons put forth below. There's no evidence it's been made or will soon be. No prejudice against re-creation when/if it happens. TravellingCari 01:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Donor

Prod contested, so here we are. No evidence of being in production, so doesn't meet WP:NFF. Shawisland (talk) 03:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No mention at all on IMDB, the "Variety" article is two years old. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 03:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 03:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No news since 2006; no evidence that the film was ever made, or ever will be made. PC78 (talk) 03:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a future film. JJL (talk) 04:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Paramount might have acquired the rights.... but that's where the trail ends. Schmidt (talk) 05:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an article on a future film. Very bad. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 05:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFF. Cliff smith ^talk 05:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article does not cite any sources and also is not notable WP:notability. Kalivd (talk) 07:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it does cite a source.--Rockfang (talk) 15:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It actually cites 2 sources... however, the reference in the 2nd paragraph of The Huffington Post article only says that the project is still "on the go with the company", and the article in Variety only states that Paramount has picked up the option. A Google search HERE shows a lot of recent buzz, but nothing definite. Got anything showing active pre-production? casting? pricnciple filming? This article can certanly come back. Drop it in your sandbox and work on it. Schmidt (talk) 18:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per WP:NFF. Article mentions a possible production date of 2009, article could possibly be recreated then. TN‑X-Man 18:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Future films. The article even admits not much is known about it. Yeah, that's because it hasn't been done yet. Delete now and perhaps recreate at some point in the distant future. Enigma ^message 20:17, 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 Alien Shooter: Vengeance, delete Alien Shooter and Zombie Shooter. If I'm reading this right, it looks as though Vengeance is sourced enough to either be considered notable or scrutinized on its own merits (and as such, I'd ask that if an AfD is opened for that article within the next couple days, it not be procedurally closed), but the other two don't have enough present to keep at this time. Next time, please consider separate AfD's. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alien Shooter

Poorly sourced article about an independently developed computer game. Google chucks up a fair few hits, but these all seem to be download mirrors or other unreliable sources.

I am also nominating the following related pages because it's a sequel to the above, and suffers from the same problems.

Delete all, no reliable sources found. I added Alien Shooter: Vengeance to the list as well. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 02:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment- Good catch, I didn't find that third one. Reyk _YO! 02:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Uh, why? It's had a GameSpot review sat in the external links since last year, an IGN review pops straight out of google [46]. Someone another 08:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. These don't seem to be notable in and of themselves, and consist almost entirely of (in-universe!) plot synopses and information that could apply to most current video games. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 05:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 04:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Vengeance there's a GameZone review for Vengeance on the first page of google results: [47], easily passes notability between IGN, GameSpot and GameZone. Someoneanother 08:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In addition, delete Alien Shooter and Zombie Shooter I'm finding no sources outside of a Game Tunnel review for each: [48][[49] and Zombie Shooter being an IndieGames.com 'indie game pick' - but all this means is you get a single one-paragraph blurb for the game, which is pretty much useless as a source. We would really need another full sized review for each game to scrape over the notability threshold and to give someone a chance of making a halfway decent article. Someone another 00:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'd strongly suggest removing Vengeance from this AFD so that we can scrutinize the other two games, it's going to distract participants from the other two which do need sources finding for them, or the chop. Someone another 21:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Alien Shooter: Vengeance is a notable games. It has reviews by IGN and GameSpot. The rest can be deleted. --SkyWalker (talk) 15:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both per above. MuZemike (talk) 18:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all can find appropriate sources to supplement the article, do not need to be deleted. --RekishiEJ (talk) 15:58, 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 per WP:SNOW. (non-administrative closure) Thanks, RyRy (talk) 09:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Black House

No reason given on why this house is notable. -- Darth Mike _(Talk _{• Contribs)} 01:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's ridiculous to think there is any reason to delete this entry. For one thing, I haven't even finished completing all of it yet, and it is definitely a notable artifact. For any history buffs in the southwest Virginia region, there is great significance. The Town has rescued this historic property that has rich history and relevance, and it has a unique role in the Blacksburg Museum which is in the works as well. All of this is to be explained in the article shortly.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshuadelung (talk • contribs)

The above comment overwrote the afd. I fixed it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 01:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, I accidentally changed it apparently. As I said before, I'm not sure why this article was marked for deletion by the user above. This is a historical landmark, and that in itself makes it a notable structure. If Wikipedia is supposed to be a forum of encyclopedia-like articles, then historical sites should definitely be included among these articles. As you can see now, I have better finish on the article than 15 minutes ago when the above user tagged it for whatever reason. There are now photos that show some of the evolution the house has undergone, and future articles involving the history of the town of Blacksburg, Virginia that I plan to write will link even more relevance to this article, as it is going to be part of a much larger project called the Blacksburg Museum. Joshuadelung• —Preceding undated comment was added at 02:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article also appears to be a copied and pasted for the most part from [50]-- Darth Mike _(Talk _{• Contribs)} 02:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
g12 as copyvio from this. No prejudice against re-creation. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 02:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC) Stubify and weak keep per Edison. May be notable after all. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 02:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment TenPoundHammer has stubbed the article down and removed the cut and paste copyvio. Edison (talk) 13:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The house is not particularly old or architecturally significant. The article presently lacks reliable and independent sources to prove notability, but the efforts that the article claims the town of Blacksburg has made to preserve it imply there might be references for notability. Are there books, magazines or newspaper articles with substantial coverage of the house? If so, add them to the article in the next few days during the course of the AFD. The ref to the city of Blacksburg site does not mention the house, but [51] does. Google News has 50 articles about "Alexander Black House" [52] from the Roanoke Times, some with substantial coverage, which argues for notability. See [53] , [54] , [55] , [56] (which says the house is "No. 1 on the list of Blacksburg's endangered historic buildings") If the present article is a copyvio, it should be stubbed rather than deleted. Edison (talk) 02:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Now that the copyvio has been removed, there seems to be enough secondary source coverage to develop an honest article. According to sources, the Black House is up for formal recognition. It's pending but sufficient historic interest appears to there. • Gene93k (talk) 03:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I hope, however, that someone can add significant information that does not deal with future events. We could use the site mentioned in the page's original version as a source... --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 05:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the house has a history associated with the founding family of the town. I added some history of the house from the town of Blacksburg's site. The town thought enough of the house that they paid to preserve it, and there's a chance it could become part of the Blacksburg Historic District on the National Register of Historic Places. That seems significant enough. And, by the way, who in the world would put vinyl siding on a Queen Anne style house? That's almost a crime against architecture. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 19:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep afd is not cleanup nor cite, if you wanted this improved, then it would have taken 5 minutes of research to determine and support notability. it's notable.--Buridan (talk) 20:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep- how silly. If a thing doesn't show notability but does actually have it, fix don't delete. If I see no assertion of notability, I check for myself via google news etc [57] rather than just attempting to kill. Sticky Parkin 23:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with good ol' Sticky Parkin. So now that everyone is in agreement, when will the marked for deletion tab at the top be removed? Joshuadelung (talk) 20:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)Joshuadelung[reply]

not yet. The tag stays until the debate is closed. Unless the nomination is withdrawn or WP:SNOWBALL is invoked, we'll just have to wait. In the mean time, doing what we can to improve the article won't hurt. • Gene93k (talk) 20:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's close it. What can be done to close the debate? It seems there is little debate. From reading above, I noticed really only one user who ever had a problem with the article, and it seems there are quite a few votes to keep the article. Sorry if it's a dumb question, but let's end the debate, get the speedy deletion tag removed, and continue improving the article... though I felt the original version was much more architecturally and historically informative... it was not documented with enough varied sources and it was mostly directly quoted material. However, it was not information that under copyright and there was permissive use, though it wasn't really needed from government-created materials from what I understand of the copyright laws. At any rate, let's restore the article as much as possible with more varied sources and quit debating for no reason. Process for the sake of process is something that Wikipedia discourages anyway. Joshuadelung (talk) 19:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)Joshuadelung[reply]

1) The AfD will automatically be closed in just a couple more days, so I don't see the rush. 2) Most works of the federal United States government are copyright-free, but all other governmental entities in the US own the right to the copyright of anything they produce; although some release their material, the website in question specifically has "© 2008 Town of Blacksburg, Virginia" on every page of their website, so Wikipedia cannot have verbatim copies of that website's content. Shawisland (talk) 01:23, 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. Sandstein 16:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Small, local, or niche genre conventions

Article consists of a list of advertisements for non-notable conventions; list will never be complete. Somno (talk) 01:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —Somno (talk) 01:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, you can't make a 'notable' from many 'non-notables.' --Mr. Vernon (talk) 01:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ as this is a useful incubator for a significant number of articles about science fiction and other conventions. This is not an attempt to list all such conventions (indeed, another article does attempt just such a thing) but a way to keep a series of stubs together in one larger, more useful article until each convention can be spun off to a useful non-stub article. - Dravecky (talk) 02:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's unlikely stubs on the articles would meet notability standards, so as Mr Vernon said, grouping them together won't make a difference. For example, Con-Troll's references are Google groups and personal websites. The other cons are unreferenced, or referenced only to the official site. That does not establish notability. Somno (talk) 04:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If you're wanting to have an incubator for articles, create a project page. However, I think this will take care of itself... --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 06:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - These are all valid points and will drop my "keep" and substitute a request to copy this to my userspace instead of pure deletion. This will allow me to salvage the remaining convention stubs to create new articles over the next few weeks, if proper sourcing can be found. - Dravecky (talk) 07:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - You should copy it to your userspace now in case the closing admin. misses your comment and deletes it before you have a chance to do so. UnitedStatesian (talk) 22:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Good point. Thanks. - Dravecky (talk) 22:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This may be a lot of things (specifically, a category or a project page), if only it were written as one. What it is not is an article. See WP:NOT#DIR. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 06:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-encyclopedic, poorly sourced content that vios WP:NOT. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:09, 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. I find that there is essentially no support for the administrative deletion of this article, no consensus for the merger of the content, and that editors supporting retention of the article persuasively argue that the proposed merger would give undue weight to the events in our biography of Laura Bush, thereby violating our biographies of living persons policy (which does not apply to Michael Dutton Douglas himself, as he as been deceased for over four decades). Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#People_notable_only_for_one_event states that "If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography may be unwarranted", but does not mandate that this result be imposed, absent some consensus to do so. John254 16:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Dutton Douglas

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

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

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

AfDs for this article:

This article survived a deletion debate in August 2005. This, however, was before the Seigenthaler incident significantly changed Wikipedia's WP:BLP policy. Even in the case of dead people notability criteria apply, specifically WP:BIO1E. This individual should certainly be mentioned in the Laura Bush article, but under current policy there is no way he can have his own article. Lampman (talk) 01:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Laura Bush. A young future First Lady ran into an ex-boyfriend and killed him. The deceased and the accident were certainly not notable at the time. It deserves merger into the Laura Bush article and not just deletion or a redirect. Google News archive shows many articles with substantial coverage, from newspapers around the world, about Laura Bush and her fatal crash into the car of ex-boyfriend Michael Douglas, over a period of many years: [58] , [59] , [60] , [61] , [62] , [63] , [64] ,[65] , [66] , [67] ,[68] , [69] , [70] , [71] , [72] , [73] , [74] , [75] , [76] , [77] , [78] , [79] , in addition to some about her and the actor of the same name. I hope that the article about Mary Jo Kopechne can be similarly merged into the Ted Kennedy article. Douglas is at least as notable as Kopechne, and Wikipedia should not display bias by having articles only relating to skeletons in the Democratic closet.Edison (talk) 02:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Merging all this information into the Laura Bush article would mean devoting too much of that article to this one incident. You just know that somebody would scream "undue weight!" and remove most of the information. Then the reader wanting to know about Laura Bush, and wanting more detail on this incident, would be deprived of neutral, properly sourced information that could and should have been available on Wikipedia. (If the outcome is merge, and that removal of information happens, I'll be happy to restore the information to the Laura Bush article. Then someone else will be happy to re-remove it. A major advantage of having a daughter article like this one is to prevent such edit wars in the main article.) JamesMLane t c 03:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Far too many reliable sources exist to delete this article. I also share JamesMLane's concerns about an undue weight issue at Laura Bush. DickClarkMises (talk) 04:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:BIO1E, it should remain as it's own article and be mentioned a la Wikipedia:Summary style in the Laura Bush article. --Firefly322 (talk) 05:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Laura Bush. I'm really not sure how WP:BIO1E supports this being kept, because he isn't notable outside the fact that he was killed by someone who later became the first lady in the US. However, the fact that she accidentally caused someone's death is notable, especially in terms of its effect on the public's opinion of her. I don't see how it's undue weight; Laura Bush just bears expansion. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 06:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment When the content is too large, which in this case it is, the WP:BIO1E policy allows for a break-out article. It's stated quite unequivocally. Not sure how it could be missed. --Firefly322 (talk) 06:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: Falcon Darkstar, would you merge into the Laura Bush article all the information that's now in the Michael Dutton Douglas article? JamesMLane t c 09:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment: If not all, what happens to the rest of the information? --Firefly322 (talk) 12:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment This article has about 256 words of text. The Laura Bush article has only 87 words about the accident in a 3364 word article. Putting in all the content of this one would not be that disproportionate. Her writings have indicated that the accident was very important in her subsequent life. But some of the personal information about him could be cut down a bit, since there is no basis for assuming it contributed to the accident, and he is notable only as the accident victim. He is definitely a person known only for one thing, because he did not get the chance to live out his life and do other things. Firefly cites WP:BIO1E inappropriately in calling for "Keep" when it actuslly says such a person should not have a stand-alone article, but his info should be merged into a more general article. Edison (talk) 13:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Most readers of Wikipedia won't care about the personal information concerning him. Of course, that's not the standard -- most readers of Wikipedia won't care about Laura Bush. Among the minority that reads the Laura Bush article, a minority of the minority might be curious about Michael Dutton Douglas. We can't assume that all readers' interest would be confined to factors that played a role in the accident. By keeping this article, we can accommodate those who want the information. JamesMLane t c 16:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        WP:BIO1E explains itself with "such as for a particular relatively unimportant crime" This person died in an auto-accident involving the younger self of the first lady. That's means, to me, that the event is much more important than who her younger self went to her high-school ball with (which by itself is a relatively unimportant event and certainly wouldn't deserve its own article). Furthermore, WP:BIO1E states "that the unless the information is so large that this would make the article unwieldy." Here is something else that about WP:BIO1E that may be counter-intuitive and provides for a reason to keep. --Firefly322 (talk) 20:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Firefly322 and other comments reasoned above. RFerreira (talk) 21:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.103.139 (talk) 00:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This is this IP address's first and only contrib. Wikiwikikid (talk) 14:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above Libertyblues (talk) 02:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above reasoned above. Sniggity 02:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sniggity (talk • contribs)
Keep as above. --96.245.84.124 (talk) 08:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This is this IP address's first and only contrib. Wikiwikikid (talk) 14:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.28.18.248 (talk) 08:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Laura Bush. Clearly non-notable. This isn't about a bunch of Bush apologists trying to remove some less than perfect truth about the first lady. WAKE UP KEEPLE! 202.54.176.51 (talk) 09:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. --70.77.37.70 (talk) 09:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Mary Jo Kopechne has an entry; so should this guy.
Speedy Keep as snowball. --Buridan (talk) 13:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Firefly322. Merge - it really isn't notable enough on its own. (aside) "but under current policy there is no way he can have his own article", unless consensus says otherwise, you mean. Keep in mind consensus still has power over policy. --ž¥łǿχ (ŧäłķ | čøŋŧřīъ§) 14:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The subject of the article is not notable, and Laura Bush was not notable at the time this occurred (differentiating from the Mary Jo Kopechne article). Nor does the inclusion of the articles relevant information (not his biographical information), cause the Laura Bush article to be "so large that this would make the article unwieldy." Therefore, WP:BIO1E does not apply. As an aside, this AfD is on the top page of reddit.com, titled "Bush Apologists trying to delete wikipedia page of the dead boyfriend Laura Bush killed." Clearly, this provides a source of canvasing. Admins, please carefully check the contribs of the voters as this has provided a source of canvasing. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an obituary. Also, consensus does not outweigh policy, Zylox. Consensus determines whether something meets policy. Voting for sake of disagreement (rather than whether something meets policy or not) is not valid. Wikiwikikid (talk) 14:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant was that policy can be changed through consensus. Sorry for being ambiguous. ;) --ž¥łǿχ (ŧäłķ | čøŋŧřīъ§) 14:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but that'd be for discussion on that particular policy's page rather than an individual article. Wikiwikikid (talk) 14:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My comment was meant as more of an aside. Perhaps I should have said "aside"? :D --ž¥łǿχ (ŧäłķ | čøŋŧřīъ§) 14:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, perhaps :-). I originally thought you were providing that as a justification for your vote. Thanks for being civil! Wikiwikikid (talk) 14:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just for the record, I tend to conservative at heart at least half of the situations I'm in. But more importantly, I believe in the rule of law (limited in scope and applied only with great and careful discernment). For situations where the law is liberal, I tend to be liberal. For situations where the law tends to be conservative, I tend to be conservative. For free for all situations, a conservative at heart and a liberal in mind and thought.
Anyhow, IF this AFD is really being viewed as demonstration/show of faith of conservative values (political litmus test instead of wikipedia policy and guidelines and most importantly the hammered-out consensus of the participating editors here), then HELL!' I'll change my !Vote and !arguments to merge. A show of some flip-flop liberal values for y'all. PEACE OUT! * smiles* --Firefly322 (talk) 03:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it would be a mistake to remove all of this detailed, well-sourced information about a reasonably notable incident from Wikipedia, and a huge mistake to shove it all into the Laura Bush article thereby giving it a great deal of undue weight. A separate article about this incident is the right solution. — ciphergoth 07:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 16:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bathroom attendant

Original research of an article. Not a reference in sight that would make anything in the article verifiable. Tavix (talk) 01:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the subject is as worthy of an article as any profession, though the lack of sourcing is undoubtedly a problem. I added one reliable source, though only as an "External link". Lampman (talk) 02:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but it needs fixed up with sources I'd think CloversMallRat (talk) 03:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't believe it's OR, and I expect that there are sufficient RS to be found. Jclemens (talk) 05:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. What a strange profession! Anyway, the article might not have been at all good before, but it doesn't seem to have anything to do with a non-notable person at all anymore, nor does the topic. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 06:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep yet remove any additional original research which happens to find its way back into the article. RFerreira (talk) 20:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Washroom. As a standalone article this doesn't seem capable of legitimately being more than a dictionary definition. --Rividian (talk) 02:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable. Everyking (talk) 07:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, just needs some TLC from a sourceophilic person. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 05:30, 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 Speedy delete (A7 - Bio that fails to indicate importance/significance of a real person) by Happyme22. Recreated prior to this closing, and deleted (A7) by Acroterion. Nonadmin close. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 12:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Masha Alalykina

Try and ignore the fact that chunks of this are copied from the woman's blog - permission would certainly be given. Try and ignore the evangelical tone. Simple question: is she notable? Sgroupace (talk) 01:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. - 10K hits from Google, nearly all links to photo pages. I only see a few links about her converting, and nothing about her life before she converted. Judging from the lack of press coverage, she doesn't seem very notable, IMHO. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 03:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per A7. Even if we do want an article on this person, this is almost certainly not a good start, and was created by a single-person account. It might even be some kind of vanity page or method of driving traffic to a blog... --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 06:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I can't evaluate this because someone deleted the article and someone else recreated it. Could someone please restore the article's history so that we can see a proper version of it?--Eastmain (talk) 10:23, 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 at this time. Davewild (talk) 17:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Human Factor (2009 film)

This is an article about a planned film, so per the notability guidelines for future films, the article does not yet warrant existence. Looks like filming is scheduled to begin in early 2009, though the actual start of filming is never guaranteed. Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFF. Current news articles on Morgan Freeman say the film is in pre-production [80]. PC78 (talk) 01:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 01:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per NFF. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 02:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CBALL Artene50 (talk) 04:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFF and WP:CBALL. Cliff smith ^talk 05:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice ~~Keep~~ and expand. I hate to be the odd man out, but apparently it has gone betond the "planning" stage. Eastwood is under contract to direct. Morgan Freman is signed to star as Nelson Mandella. And Matt Daemon is signed to star as Francois Pienaar. These Google search parameters HERE and HERE brought up artcles from June 2008 all the way to today. Things are moving on this one. [81], [82],[83],[84],[85],[86], [87],[88],[89],[90],[91],[92],[93],[94] et al. This one is more than just a rumor. Schmidt (talk) 05:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. The reason that the notability guidelines for future films recommends that a stand-alone article for a film should not be created until a project enters production is for very good, practical reasons. Budget issues, scripting issues, and casting issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended filming date (hopefully, Morgan Freeman's recent car accident will be followed by a speedy recovery, but it is one example of how a film might be disrupted by events beyond the filmmakers' control). We've seen a lot of projects fall by the wayside at the last minute, so this is the only way of ensuring that this place doesn't get clogged with stubby articles about films which were never made and thus would ultimately fail the general notability guideline. It should also never be assumed that because a film is likely to be reasonably high-profile, with major stars attached, that it will be immune to the usual pitfalls which can affect these productions, especially in the current climate. Projects can be put on hold at the last minute while a director tackles another film (e.g. Spielberg's Lincoln), we had the potential actors' strike, and look at how many productions were postponed, even shelved indefinitely, because of the 2007-2008 Writers Guild of America strike. These included the very high profile Justice League film, Pinkville, and Shantaram among many others. Projects unaffected by any strike shenanigans, yet which are still in development hell, include Jurassic Park IV (which many would consider a no-brainer for a speedy greenlight, and which was actually supposed to be released in 2005), and White Jazz. State of Play, which had Brad Pitt and Edward Norton mere weeks away from filming in November 2007, was a hair's breadth away from being abandoned after Pitt jumped ship. In accordance with the guideline, the article can be recreated without prejudice if and when principal photography is finally confirmed to have begun. All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 07:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Schmidt, maybe we could write up a section at Nelson Mandela#Biographical film or something of the like. I did this for Danny Glover#Planned directorial debut for the film Toussaint. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 10:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be a good idea. Cliff smith ^talk 15:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my reasons above. Steve ^{T • C} 07:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NFF. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Delete. MrMPS - the best solution would be to put it in some kind of sandbox, so that the article returns and is published for 'wide audience' once the movie is complete. Do as you wish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrMPS (talk • contribs)
- Changed my vote. Have moved article to a sandbox. Will work on it with sources as they become avaialable in preparation for possible return as article about the film or inclusion in one like Nelson Mandela#Biographical film, per MrMPS, Erik, Steve ^{T • C}, Cliff smith, and PC78. Thanks all. We'll see if this boat floats. Schmidt (talk) 17:42, 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) 17:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Universe_Cineplex

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Universe Cineplex

Movie theater with no notability or reason why it warrants a Wikipedia entry.--Mr. Vernon (talk) 01:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re:deletion This article should not be deleted... There are only two articles on Karachi's Movie theatres/Cinemas/Cineplex, i.e. Bambino Cinema and Universe Cineplex. There are still many movie theatres working in Karachi such Prince Cinema, Capri, Nishat, Karachi Cineplex, Star Cinema, Lyric, Lyric 2, Princess, etc., and I believe more articles should be created on these movie theatres, which would definitely be of readers' interests. I agree that more material are required to be added in this article.--Plutonics (talk) 01:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As nom said, there does not appear to be any indication of how this theater is any different/more notable than any other. TN‑X-Man 18:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No assertion that this cinema is in any way notable enough for inclusion into an encyclopaedia, and a short search didn't turn up anything either. Fails WP:NOTE. --Amalthea^Talk 20:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence or assertion of notability. Not an A7 because it's a bldg more than a company, but borderline. To the creator, if you find it to be notable please find reliable sources to verify that. TravellingCari 01:34, 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 per recent edits. Non-admin closing. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 09:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Macaroni soup

A {{hangon}} template on this article has been interpreted as an opposition to a prod. No apparent notability. Original research. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research, seemingly failing WP:N - can we add "...a recipe book" to What wikipedia is not? - Toon⁰⁵ 01:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:RS. All I'm finding is recipe sites. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 01:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Good work, people. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 03:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails as WP:OR. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 04:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Toon, TenPoundHammer, and Esradekan. Cliff smith ^talk 05:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per WP:HEY. Cliff smith ^talk 04:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seriously, who would read an article on Macaroni soup??--EZ1234 (talk) 07:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's chicken soup with elbow macaroni as the noodles. Not very inspired. Nate • (chatter) 09:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I would also add Mami Soup to the list. -- azumanga (talk) 16:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, sounds tasty but Wikipedia is not a recipe book, unless said recipe has been independently discussed in reliable sources. I don't think this delicious soup has done that, unfortunately. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 17:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well sourced. Switched to Keep~ mazca ^{t | c} 06:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep. erm, has anyone checked for sources? [95] 284 google news hits, [96] 634 on google books, [97] 73 on google scholar. We have a lot of stub articles about foods, that doesn't make it WP:NOT, foods are encyclopedic if they've been mentioned in multiple reliable sources. Sticky Parkin 23:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And have you looked at any of those sources? Is there any information in any of them that would be relevant to an encyclopedia article? The news reports generally involve either a recipe for something containing macaroni, or a passing statement that someone ate something-and-macaroni-soup. The book hits are, unsurprisingly, almost universally recipe books. A large majority of the scholar hits seem to come in lists of food in phrases like "eating elbow macaroni, soup, or other foods...." hence not actually discussing "macaroni soup" at all; and when they do it seems to be in passing. To me this looks more like an example of why number of google hits is not necessarily a good indicator of notability. If you can make a decent article out of them I'd be interested to see it, but I certainly wouldn't want to try. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 23:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, I do more specialised google and other searches, such as google books and scholar, which are very useful and full of WP:RS and academic sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sticky Parkin (talk • contribs)

I know, I still think there's a difference between passing mentions in reliable sources and actual articles about macaroni soup. But I think you've found enough that do class as the latter, well done. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 06:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've now included twelve references, most of them are from google books, including historical and social, institutional uses of the soup. This includes its being included in Mrs Beeton's Book of Household Management. I hope you all take another look at the article, and realise it's now as notable as any other food for which we have a stub, in fact far more than many because of its historical use and discussion for social welfare purposes and so on. Sticky Parkin 00:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now Obvious Keep. Kudos to Sticky Parkin for making the article encyclopedia-worthy. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Good work. Vast improvement from the original form. Has reliable sources and has been verified to meet notability. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 04:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 04:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Change to Keep Article seems to be in position for a successful rescue with the better referencing and stronger rewrite to make it beyond what I had listed in my original vote. Nate • (chatter) 04:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - properly sourced and meets the standards of WP:note, WP:V and WP:RS. No violation of WP:OR or WP:Not --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 07:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep The reliable sources provided, a source from 1819 and a page in the New York Times, is a testament to the subject's notability. Passes WP:V and WP:OR. PeterSymonds (talk) 09:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - Version of 6 August 2008 properly sourced, readable, and no different in style from scores of other food articles in Wiki. Absolutely no reason to single out this one for deletion. --Zlerman (talk) 09:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article passes WP:V, WP:RS and WP:N. --Kanonkas : Talk 09:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wow now since it has been expanded it might be useful!--EZ1234 (talk) 12:02, 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) 17:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chantal Feghali

Delete - there is no indication of notability as per WP:BIO or WP:CREATIVE as a post-production supervisor. Google search for "Chantal Feghali" does not bring up any significant mentions of the name, only the usual imdb- and Amazon-type listings. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 00:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does a wonderful job of failing to meet WP:BIO. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 02:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the IMDB link has a nice picture of her face but she is mostly listed as a 'post-production supervisor' on films rather than a movie director. This doesn't prove her innate notability. Artene50 (talk) 04:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She was a senior special effects person for some films which made heavy use of special effects, and I think that demonstrates notability. I added some references, including one mentioning a phone call she made to some special effects efforts that led to their participation in a project. --Eastmain (talk) 04:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Jauerback. Cliff smith ^talk 05:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--SkyWalker (talk) 08:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable. Schmidt (talk) 05:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are thousands of excellent production personel withing the film and television industries. The article in AfD does not show ant special notability beyond she being one of these excellent many. Schmidt (talk) 06:18, 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 a3, no meaningful content, and WP:SNOW per below. NawlinWiki (talk) 00:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Potatology

A {{hangon}} template on this article has been interpreted as an opposition to a prod. Neologism with no asserted notability, apparently used only within a video game. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to be WP:NFT. If not, it's apparently not notable at all. Rnb (talk) 01:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Made-up term, no sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 01:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There isn't even clear evidence that it appears in the game and isn't a "fan word". Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 02:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 04:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. MrKIA11 (talk) 04:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per this made up term. Artene50 (talk) 04:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails as WP:MADEUP. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 04:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Cliff smith ^talk 05:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete junk JuJube (talk) 07:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neologism. No references. Fails notabology. Axl (talk) 16:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Article is about a non-notable neologism. Fails WP:NEO. MuZemike (talk) 18:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No other references of this found, game does not reference this term in it.D3l8 (talk) 03:51, 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 as vandalism. ... discospinster _talk 01:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dune bear

Dune bears? Sending to AFD as a less-then-obvious-but-maybe-it-is hoax. Bears in deserts?? Not likely. Three paper sources cited. Google sources not found. Dlohcierekim's sock (talk) 00:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G3 No hits for the name in English or Arabic. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 00:58, 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, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 17:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

McClean (hygiene)

I don't think that a hygiene station is notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. The only external link is a German website so I don't know how reliable it is. Tavix (talk) 00:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources found, just false positives. Also, their official website is down. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 00:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N and WP:RS The web site is indeed dead at present. Artene50 (talk) 04:17, 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 A7 by Athaenara, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 01:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reaction Theory

Another non-notable band. The only sources are things like myspace and the official website. Reyk _YO! 00:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete no assertion of notability. They have not even published there first album yet. There are some borderline assertions of notability in #History but that section is more about one of the band memebers "Craig Wolf" and what he was doing five years before the band formed. - Icewedge (talk) 00:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete this should be upgraded to a speedy delete. Not notable, not verifiable. No external sources that are not from user-generated content... Addionne (talk) 01:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A7 Doesen't contain an assertation of notability. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 01:15, 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 as he fails WP:ATHLETE. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 23:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tomasz Kupisz

Player fails notability at WP:ATHLETE having never played in a fully-professional league/competition Hubschrauber729 (talk) 00:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unneeded article about another youth footballer, clearly fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:FOOTYN --Angelo (talk) 00:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. -- TravellingCari 02:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- TravellingCari 02:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep currently training with first team as per [98]. Season begins in 5 days. Pure insanity to start deleting articles of first team player 5 days before start of season. If necessary relist in a fortnight if they aren't part of first team. Nfitz (talk) 06:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "season begins in 5 days", and so? Competitive football matches are played every week once the season starts, so I don't really understand your point. In addition, we're talking of a 18-year old youngster who is signed with his current team since February 2007, and with very little chances of playing immediately at the season start (he has never played before, in the end). --Angelo (talk) 07:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

.......plus the Premier League season doesn't start in 5 days anyway, it starts in 11 days -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correct - I was thinking Championship. I can never get my mind around Wigan being in the Premiership ... however point stands, there seems little point in deleting articles for first team players 11 days before the season starts. Nfitz (talk) 08:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; fails WP:ATHLETE. Can recreate when/if he become notable. Giant Snowman 10:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, player fails notability at WP:ATHLETE. Recreate if and when he plays in a fully pro league/competition. Keeping an article on the basis that he might play in a couple of days time is crystal ballery.--Jimbo^[online] 12:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. You should read WP:CRYSTAL. Keeping an article on the basis that he's going to play in the next few weeks ISN'T crystal ballery. A few months or years yes. The example there list events that we know will happen 2 years from now not being WP:CRYSTAL! Nfitz (talk) 17:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment so, you're sure this guy's actually going to play in two weeks. Just out of curiosity, do you have a crystal ball or, maybe, you just talked with Steve Bruce about his presence in the lineup? I think these are the two only ways to be somewhat sure of this bold claim. --Angelo (talk) 08:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep doesn't policy say he'll be keepable after he plays 1 minutes in a match? Seems silly to exclude him now, regardless we have a non-trivial source. Drunken Pirate (talk) 21:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't read Polish. Does it say that he has made an appearance for a senior team in a professional league? Hubschrauber729 (talk) 21:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously it doesn't say that. So can no athlete ever have an article that hasn't "made an appearance for a senior team in a professional league?" Did Kobe Bryant not have an article until he played his first pro game? Seems like we're being a little too hung up on WP:ATHLETE that will be filled in a few days. I don't know what we gain by having this deleted and recreated in two weeks. Drunken Pirate (talk) 22:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, plenty of footballers are kept because they pass WP:BIO. --Jimbo^[online] 12:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about a boxer who won National Championship but never took part in any fight in ring just because the opponents were surrendered by walkover? greg park avenue (talk) 14:18, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - all current players of Wigan Atheletic are listed in Wikipedia, see no 31 Maynor Figueroa, why Kupisz with No 28 should be an exception? Soccer is a team sport or what? greg park avenue (talk) 21:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Figueroa has played at professional level and represented his country and therefore clearly passes WP:ATHLETE. Kupisz has done neither. I fail to see what you are driving at with your comparison. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Kupisz also represented his country, but obviously some countries are more equal than others. And if you classify notability of an athlete on the basis how much money he makes, I think you're in the wrong category of sports. I recommend switching to tennis or golf. greg park avenue (talk) 05:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's held across the board that U-19 appearances (or U-23, or anything but senior team) don't count for notability. That doesn't matter if it's England, if it's the US, or if it's Poland or anywhere else. If Kupisz had made an appearance for the senior national squad in a competitive (i.e., not a friendly) match, we would consider him to be notable. If you have some proof that he has, please share, since no one here is interested in wrongly deleting players. Vickser (talk) 05:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - What are you talking about greg? If you read WP:ATHLETE and Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability, you will realize that youth appearances do not count toward notability. What is the point of keeping this article? He does not have a professional game under his belt, which cleary proves that fails WP:ATHLETE. Why keep it? Hubschrauber729 (talk) 05:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Why exclude him from this list? All players 1 to 29 are here, what's wrong with number 28? greg park avenue (talk) 05:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Without having actually double checked that this is true for each player, it's presumably because they have all made senior team appearances in a fully professional league and thus pass WP:Athlete. If that's not true for any of the players on the list, those players should also likely be deleted. If and when Kupisz makes an appearance, he too can get an article. Vickser (talk) 05:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Wrong interpretation of Wikipedia guidelines. Even in WP:MUSIC a member of a notable band is generally considered notable or vice versa - if one member of the band became notable somewhere else, the band is considered notable. Same thing in World Cup in Soccer - if a national team wins the championship, each member of the team (all 22 atheletes) gets the medal, even those who didn't appear in any game. They are just part of the team, and that's what this sport is about. greg park avenue (talk) 13:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Actually, according to 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," so that's a bad example. Regardless, for WP:Athlete, you need to have actually played in a competitive match for the team, just being signed and having a number isn't enough. Our policy is that way across all sports. Vickser (talk) 20:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He doesn't pass WP:Athlete, and I can't find any evidence (nor do I see any evidence presented here) that suggests he otherwise passes WP:BIO. If at some point in the future he does meet one of those, I won't oppose recreation. Vickser (talk)`
Delete I agree with Vickser. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 16:50, 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 as he meets WP:ATHLETE. This is an unambiguous confirmation that he played for FCK. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 10:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yüsüf Öztürk

Player fails notability at WP:ATHLETE having appeared to never play in a fully-professional league/competition Hubschrauber729 (talk) 00:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- TravellingCari 02:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. -- TravellingCari 02:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Meets WP:ATHLETE. As noted on the Danish language page that is referenced on Yüsüf Öztürk, he had 18 appearances in 1999/2000 for F.C. Copenhagen, which plays in the top tier of Danish football. Nfitz (talk) 06:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you see that he has made 18 appearances? Hubschrauber729 (talk) 19:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, on the Danish language Wikipedia page. (I left a : out of the link by accident so it was missing from the text). It says "1999-2000: FC København, 18 kampe og ingen mål, Superliga ". "kampe" is "campaigns"; "ingen" is "none"; and "mål" is "goal". 18 appearances and no goals. Nfitz (talk) 06:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He played in the Danish Superliga, which seems to be fully professional (or at least the top level). If that is false, please note as much, and we can delete it as a hoax. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 09:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nfitz. Giant Snowman 10:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Nfitz. Sunderland06 (talk) 23:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is not one source that shows he has played. The Danish WP article is unsourced also. This site show he has not played as far as I can tell. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 17:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok it looks like he played for BANDIRMASPOR but I can not tell if they are professional or not. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 17:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That site doesn't list Danish games, only Turkish, as far as I know, So it doesn't prove he hasn't played for Copenhagen. Nfitz (talk) 23:12, 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, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 17:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rajesh Dhawan (meerut)

unnotable and unverifiable Sarangi maker. Notability is not inherited. Tavix (talk) 00:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- TravellingCari 02:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article does not establish the notability of this person and lacks WP:RS Artene50 (talk) 04:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Artene50 is correct in that the article does not demonstrate notability through reliable sources. Given that he seemed to have been involved in one or more notable exhibitions I did have a look for some sources to back this article up, but I haven't seen anything that says much about him at this time. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 17:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find any source either. We need to do better than a myspace page. Drunken Pirate (talk) 21:36, 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 keep. John254 16:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cahit Paşa

Player fails notability at WP:ATHLETE having never played in a fully-professional league/competition Hubschrauber729 (talk) 00:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. -- TravellingCari 02:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- TravellingCari 02:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: To answer question of whether he is notable, we need to look at what Turkish leagues are professional. He seems to have appeared for a few Turkish second and third league teams according to [99]; possibly even first league depending on timing. Nfitz (talk) 06:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: if we want to follow WP:Athlete, Turkish_football_league_system shows that 2nd and 3rd Turkish leagues are distinct from amateur leagues. Drunken Pirate (talk) 21:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There is no evidence that he actually made any appearances for any of those teams. And I can't read Turkish so that link doesn't help me. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 21:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- reply this shows what teams he played for, the first one I checked is not amatuer. It's in English. Drunken Pirate (talk) 21:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply - Yes I understand that he has been a member of those teams. That doesn't mean he has made appearances for them. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 21:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - sorry , I assumed if he played for that many teams he at one point made an appearance. He did make at least one appearnace of 46 minutes]. That is in the second highest league in Ireland. Drunken Pirate (talk) 22:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - [100] is quite clear that he made appearances - and easy to use even if you don't know a word of Turkish. Select Sezon (which is Turkish for Season), and select a year, start with 1994-1995, and you can see he had appearances for KUŞADASISPOR and BORNOVASPOR of 3.Lig. In 1995-1996 he had appearances for S.EFESSPOR and KUŞADASISPOR of 3.Lig. In 1996-1997 he had appearances for KUŞADASISPOR of Lig B Klasman and S.EFESSPOR of 3.Lig ... etc. Appearances go up to 2007-2008, and he appeared for all the teams listed. He looks like he pretty much played in every game. If any of those teams qualify for professional, then article is a Keep. Nfitz (talk) 22:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the highest level of football he ever played was for Konyaspor in the 2nd level in the 2001-02 season (called 2. League A at the time). I have read elsewhere that the Turkish 2nd level is not fully professional, but if it is he played in 31 matches that season according to the TFF website. Jogurney (talk) 19:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per two other closed AfDs, the TFF First League (or its predecessor, the 2. League A) is viewed as a fully professional league, and the player has appeared 31 times at that level. Jogurney (talk) 21:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as he technically passes WP:ATHLETE. – LATICS talk 04:01, 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 There is some question about whether WP:ATHLETE applies to horses, but the consensus here is that this horse is not notable. (non-admin) SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Storm Treasure

does not warrant a Wikipedia article. The horse has won only three minor races, non of which are important races and none are even a Stakes race. It seems more like an advertisement than an encyclopedia article.

delete no notability. Mukadderat (talk) 15:41, 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 00:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An article on a relatively minor horse. Artene50 (talk) 04:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As much as this horse probably doesn't need an article, I've seen cricket players with a single reference of them existing warranting an article. We have non-trivial coverage of this horse's race history and stats and pedigree and stuff. Since its sourcable, I think we gotta keep it. Drunken Pirate (talk) 21:12, 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, --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 05:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This doesn't seem terribly notable, similar to the lack of notability attributed to a cricket bat. Besides, this still fails WP:ATHLETE. Simply that we have articles on cricket players above is no reason to keep this one (as that is a logical fallacy and listed in WP:AADD besides). --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 05:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also note: I relisted this a second time because while I would have loved to close it delete, there didn't seem to be much consensus (still). I could have closed it no consensus, but then I would have had to list it here anyway. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 05:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - ?Yeah yeah, I know about WP:AADD, that's not going to stop me from being snarky, but this horse was in the Kentucky Derby, so how does he fail WP:Athlete? Wouldn't that be equivalent to a soccer player playing a match in a premier league and passing WP:Athlete or is there a WP:Horse I don't know about? Wait, there is a WP:Horse but it strangely doesn't seem to be relevant. Drunken Pirate (talk) 06:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Why to Keep it!--Puttyschool (talk) 18:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I really don't think that animals can qualify for notability under WP:ATHLETE, and altogether a minor horse and without notability if it doesn't qualify under WP:ATHLETE. Nyttend (talk) 19:48, 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 Keep (non-admin closure), as relisting garnered only one more keep and no others. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 05:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remix Main Characters

this is a cast of characters on a defunct show. I don't know how notable the show itself was and there are no references. ChiragPatnaik (talk) 09:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lack of references is grounds for improvement, not deletion. (And the article definitely needs improvement.) The show being 'defunct' is not a grounds for deletion, either, otherwise it would be an acceptable reason to delete Star Trek, I Love Lucy, and every other TV show that has ceased production. Character articles are legitmate spinoff from main articles to to keep the main articles from growing too long. Edward321 (talk) 23:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Lack of references is grounds for improvement" is this policy in this case? Doesn't this open the door to fan-based original research or characters to every show? Can I watch a couple episodes and create a Characters of According to Jim? Drunken Pirate (talk) 21:27, 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 00:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep trim a little, and give some background. What I think we want is something midway between this over-expansive article and the over-brief treatment in the main one on the series. DGG (talk) 02:58, 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 Keep, consensus is that the article is notable. Davewild (talk) 17:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sprout Sharing Show

Unsourced article about a segment in a show on a cable channel. No assertion of what is supposed to be important about it. Guy (Help!) 20:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At the least, Merge/Redirect to PBS KIDS Sprout. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as program on notable cable network. Merge is undesirable, as the article doesn't contain any show-related information other than a list of Wiki links to show articles. Ford MF (talk) 18:13, 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 00:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Contrary to what the nomination says, it does appear to be a TV show in its own right rather than a segment of one. That said, I'm entirely neutral as to whether it's worth keeping or not given that fact, I am wholly unfamiliar with American kids TV. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 17:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Show is real and sourcable, so notable Drunken Pirate (talk) 21:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant keep. I'm quite unfortunately very familiar with toddler-TV. My boy loves the sharing show. It's a real show. It's unusual in its formatting for sure, being that it's literally hours long, and interjected with 10-15 minute snippets of other shows. It's kind of like the "frosting" on a gingerbread house. Holds all the pieces together, but very necessary to not just have a pile of gumdrops and stale cookies lying around. I hate the Sharing Show. And the Bedtime Show, and the Sprout Morning Show. Hate them. But they're notable and sourcable, with hosts, activities, themes, and independent programming. I so wish I were wrong. Actually, I mostly just wish I didn't know all this.... Keeper ǀ 76 21:07, 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, SNOW close, as Pete says not something to waste much time on. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Presistent vegetative

Essay-like article completely based upon one person's own interpretation, but one that might be edited into a quality article. Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 23:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, somebody created a diary entry, and it's Persistent. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 02:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, should have been marked for speedy deletion. Note that there is already a high-quality article at persistent vegetative state. Looie496 (talk) 02:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete per Looie496, persistent vegetative state exists and, per Phlegm Rooster, this falls under some form of WP:NOT, ought to be speediable, perhaps a quick WP:SNOW will do. Pete.Hurd (talk) 03:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article indeed falls under WP:NOT which is, unfortunately, explicitly not a reason for a speedy. Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 09:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know. I meant ought to be speediable as in "wouldn't it be nice not to waste time on an AfD", not is. Pete.Hurd (talk) 14:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Looie496. If there is already an article out there, there is no need for this. (Removing my previous vote, to long to stripe) Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 09:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Good article already exists - perhaps turn this into a redirect to the good article Braindigitalis (talk) 13:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect: it's a simple typo, so quite a plausible redirect. Nyttend (talk) 17:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:13, 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.

[AHH-1] Steve Raze (November 5 2007). Lloyd Banks & Tony Yayo: Shooters, Part 2. AllHipHop. Accessed November 6 2007.

[Q&A2-2] DefSounds. May 22 2008. G-Unit Q&A Session Part 2. DefSounds. Accessed May 24 2008.

[3] TRL. G-Unit on TRL (6/30/2008). DailyMotion. Accessed August 6 2008.

[4] XXL (November 16 2007). Video: Real Talk with Tony Yayo. XXLMag. Accessed November 16 2007.

[5] Yayo goes off, Young Buck gets ready. DefSounds. Accessed July 31 2007.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]