Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 August 17

< August 16	August 18 >

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 no consensus, defaulting to keep. I would have !voted "strong delete" myself, but its clear there is no consensus in this AfD as-is. Tan ǀ 39 16:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pirani Ameena Begum

This article was nominated for deletion in February and the result of that discussion was keep, but on the understanding that this would allow a newbie editor to edit the article and add sources to clarify subject and establish notability. Almost 6 months later, this has not happened. The main claims for notability of the subject of this article are 1/ One of her uncles from her father's side was the historically well-known politician called "Judge Baker"; 2/ the wife of Sufi Master Hazrat Inayat Khan; 3/ she was the mother of his four children: Noor-un-Nisa (1913), Vilayat (1916), Hidayat (1917) and Khair-un-Nisa (1919); 4/ she was one of the first female Sufi Shaikh - Pirani on the West and 5/ published a collection of 101 Poems called "A Rosary of one hundred and one beads". Some of those poems were lost in the war of 1940, but a few have been preserved. Although her uncle, husband, and several of her children are notable persons, notability is not inherited. The claim that she was "one of the first female Sufi Shaikh" (note that apparently she was not the first) is still unsourced. The poems that she wrote were mostly destroyed and only a few apparently got published, but in a small magazine called Caravanseari and there is no ecidence that they made any impact at all. The article contains several references. However, upon closer examination they all seem to deal with either her husband Inayat Khan or her daughter, Noor-un-nisa Inayat Khan. In all, I don't think that this establish any notability of the subject of this article and hence I re-propose it for deletion. Crusio (talk) 14:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This is actually an outstanding article which provides encyclopedic material on a subject from outside of anglocentric culture. With 5 unimpeachable references and several strong assertions of notability as delineated in the nomination above. True, the article could use some attention, and should be filled-out a little and better wikified. Inline citations from the provided sources would be an excellent improvement. There is no deadline, so we should not cull the article just because it is not ready for GA/FA at this point. (Disclosure: I was the closing admin of the first AFD, and i have subsequently contributed to this article.) Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 00:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually, I don't think there are any "strong assertions of notability". Being the niece, wife or sister of notable persons does not make oneself notable. Being the first female Sufi Shaikh would perhaps be notable, but she wasn't that either. That just leaves a few poems that did not get any overage besides the original publication. As for the unimpeachable references, they are about different persons. And as for "deadlines", I have waited 6 monhts for improvements before nominating this again, no sources have been forthcoming in that half year. --Crusio (talk) 09:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Dear Jerry, please have a look on an article again after new corrections. I'm afraid this is the case, based on the personal dislike of an AfD nominator Crusio, who second time uses principles of Wikipedia like notability, verifiability, merge, citation, sometimes all of them to provoke article deletion. Proof of this personal or family or religious dislike is that Crusio now started to use notability tag in articles about other Hazrat Inayat Khan family members. [[1]] We need advice from Wikipedia administrators, what to do with this situation?

Keep There are no ref tags, so it is difficult to argue whether certain things in the article are "unsourced" without a copy of the references. Titles, too, can be misleading. Who knows? Maybe a chapter of the books "about" her daughter or her husband are devoted to Pirani Ameena Begum.

I would like to see more conclusive evidence about these references before considering whether to delete this article. I currently agree with Jerry that this provides valuable encyclopedic material.

« D. Trebbien (talk) 02:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"maybe", "who knows"? Is that a way to source an encyclopedia? --Crusio (talk) 09:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional information. On the website of the Sufi movement, her husband's comments on his wife can be found here. It seems evident that he was lauding her support as a loving wife, nothing less and nothing more. No bio is provided on the website of the International Sufi Movement, she is only mentioned as the mother of Pir-o-Murshid Hidayat. Here is an obituary on another Sufi site. The poems in Caravanserai are available online here, note that not even on this website did anyone bother to post a comment. She is not included in this list of famous Sufis. These are the most interesting links that I found in this Google search (47 hits total without using "", so that several non-pertinent sites also popped up. Also note that among these 47 hits are several mirrors of the Wikipedia article). In all, not a hint that Begum was more than a loving housewife and mother. --Crusio (talk) 14:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Crusio (talk) 17:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article on Inayat Khan does not link here and only mentions Begum as Khan's wife. I have posted a note on the talk page of that article so that any editors interested in Khan can participate in the present debate. Given the sparse discussion up till now, I suggest that this AfD proposal should be relisted to generate more debate. I am not sure whether I can do that (being the nominator), so I will not do this for the moment. --Crusio (talk) 17:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
merge with the Inayat Khan article might be the best solution if there is insufficient to establish notability for her own article. The claim is that "Hazrat Inayat Khan often said that without Ameena Begum's help he would never have been able to bring the Sufi Message to the Western world." That would perhaps justify a merge; although, of course, that is an unsourced statement in the Pirani Ameena Begum article. But it might be enough to justify merging with the Inayat Khan article until there is enough to justify a separate article for her. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I just want add that this link [2] indicates her importance in Inayat Khan's life, but not her own notability; indicating that a merge could be justified. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:02, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The page quotes her husband as praising her for being a fine wife and mother. But, as far as I understand it, it doesn't even start to say that she contributed to her husband's work. -- Hoary (talk) 03:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - - Here's another link from the same site, with a little more.John Z (talk) 05:50, 13 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) 23:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I originally closed this debate as no consensus, but Crusio commented that I should have relisted it instead. As it was fairly marginal, I have done that. My closure follows:

The result was No consensus. Length of time is not a deletion reason (WP:NOEFFORT), but notability is still seemingly under debate. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 08:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on her publications (i). It would seem that she has had one essay and three pages of poetry published. I thought I'd investigate, and started with what's described as Poems from Thy Rosary of a Hundred Beads, a collection of poems written by 'Sharda, Pirani Ameena Begum Ora-Ray Inayat Khan'. "Caravanseari" magazine (Canada) November 1988 pp.. 31-34. Canada is unusually big for a "place of publication", but it's one with historical and linguistic links to Britain and I therefore looked up the periodical Caravanseari (sic) at the convenient Copac. Nothing. I then tried the much likelier periodical Caravanserai at Copac. Nothing. I then looked up Caravanseari (sic) at WorldCat. Nothing. Finally, I tried Caravanserai at WorldCat, and found one periodical of that title that was published in Barcelona. (I should point out to our younger readers that Canada, although large, does not encompass Barcelona.) I have no reason to think that a Canadian Caravanseari/Caravanserai exists. -- Hoary (talk) 00:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, there is this web page, which claims to present what was printed in this journal that no library bothers to shelve. Now, I'm no poet or literary critic, but it seems to me that a charitable way to describe these poems would be to say that they're insubstantial. (I'm trying not to use terms such as "doggerel" and "Hallmark".) Of course my opinion means squat; what would matter is the comment of any respected literary critic. Has any made any comment? -- Hoary (talk) 01:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on her publications (ii). The other publication is in "The Sufi" magazine No. 3 Vol. I, Sept. 1915. WorldCat lists The Sufi published in Southampton from 1933; The Sufi Quarterly published in Geneva from circa 1925, and, er, nothing else that looks similar. So I have no reason to think that this publication exists either. -- Hoary (talk) 00:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- FWIW, I wouldnt rely too much on WorldCat for material like this as an indication that there was not an earlier publication by that title. But I agree there is no positive evidence of importance. DGG (talk) 02:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This confirms that "The Sufi" existed, starting in 1915, and as other articles here state, that she was the half-sister of Pierre Bernard (yogi).John Z (talk) 06:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Here's what it says: Hazrat Inayat Khan's magazine, 'The Sufi', started in London (de J-K 138). So yes, such a magazine existed. It was run by PAB's husband. Right, so she published one essay in a magazine that was published by her husband and that's so obscure that it's not listed in WorldCat, and posthumously published several verses that are said to have appeared in a magazine that's also so obscure that it's not listed by WorldCat, though it does reappear within somebody's blog. Er ... does she have any other notability? -- Hoary (talk) 06:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 01:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 03:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 03:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The 1993 Rawlinson article found above by User:John Z looks like a good source on who was who in the Western Sufi movement. This article observes that a number of women assumed prominent roles in the Western movement. It discusses the careers of six women who were named as Sufi teachers, but gives only a passing mention to Pirani Ameena Begum, who is not identified as a teacher. Here are the two passages that mention her at all:

"Inayat Khan stayed in Britain for eight years. In 1913, he married Ora Baker, an American who was the half-sister of Pierre Bernard/Oom the Omnipotent and also distantly related to Mary Baker Eddy, the founder of Christian Science; she was henceforth known as Amina Begum Inayat Khan."
"..Sufi Order Pir Vilayat Khan (Hazrat Inayat Khan's son but his mother was American and he is completely Western apart from his father's nationality."

I suggest that the Rawlinson article is good enough be used as a reference in the other WP articles on Western Sufis, whenever that person is named by Rawlinson. However Piri Ameena Begum doesn't show up as a notable figure (except as the mother or wife of notable figures) in the Western Sufi movement, in Rawlinson's account. EdJohnston (talk) 14:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete Notability is not inherited. Appears to lack reefs to show she was notable in her own right. Edison (talk) 21:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable person despite the article still need a lot of work--Puttyschool (talk) 02:14, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you have to put in a huge ammount of effort to demonstrate lack of notability; then its probably worth the benefit of the doubt. What's going on here is an extrapolation of logic that results in illogical argumentation. "This book lists notable people, this book does not list the subject of this article, therefore this subject is not notable." That is seriously flawed logic. There is no benefit to listing all of the books that do not demonstrate notability for a subject in it's AfD, because we could do that with most any article. "Here is a reputable book about sports. It does not talk about shinty, therefore shinty is not notable." "Here is a reputable book about people from Illinois. It does not list Abe Lincoln. Therefore Abe Lincoln is not notable." Do you see how that does not work? Using that logic I could prove that Oprah, P'diddy, Madonna, Pee Wee Herman, George Bush, Queen Victoria, Tutankhamen and Malcolm X are all not notable. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 02:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned Rawlinson's article (found by John Z) since it was the best treatment I myself have seen of the Western Sufi movement. When we do find a good quality source, it's completely kosher to ask whether, in the view of that source, this was a notable person or not. The quality of the sources found in this second AfD seems to be markedly better than what was known in the first AfD. Nothing prevents you from looking for sources that might tip the balance in the other direction. Sources that might exist, but nobody can find, are not very persuasive. EdJohnston (talk) 05:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "If you have to put in a huge amount of effort to demonstrate lack of notability".... Actually, it is completely the other way around. Nobody has demonstrated any notability yet. The "Keep" votes here just assert "notable person", "very encyclopedic article" and such. As has been shown above, the "unimpeachable references" in the article do not establish notability for this person at all. No other sources can be found, despite many efforts shown by several people here (all of them "delete" votes, I note). More sources may exist. And one of those emails that I get every day promising me 10.5 million dollars if I just help somebody move money into my bank account may be true, too. If you have to put in an enormous effort to demonstrate notability, but despite that don't come up with anything, perhaps that actually means there is no notability.... --Crusio (talk) 06:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think one gets somewhat better results with "Ora Ray Baker" like [3], may do more serious searching again later if there's time. The recent biography of the daughter listed in the references quite probably is a good source for the mother. The article presently says "about Begum 4-46 pp", which I assume was put there in good faith; anywhere near that much would support an article. This isn't surprising, as the relation to half-brother Pierre Bernard and the (questioned by some sources) relation to Mary Baker Eddy is of interest too. Unfortunately none of it is online, so library research is essential for this one.John Z (talk) 09:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If a biography spends forty pages on and off about the biographee's mother, how does this show that the mother was notable? Or what do you suppose is Begum/Baker's notability? -- Hoary (talk) 12:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - By the GNG "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." Wikipedia notability doesn't primarily mean that any particular editor thinks the topic is worthy or interesting enough to cover substantially, it means that someone else has thought so and published. Substantial coverage is a reasonable assumption, in light of the claim in the article, and the fact that this is just the kind of thing that a careful scholarly biography, which on all accounts it is, would do.John Z (talk) 20:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Perhaps I should have italicized the "on and off" above. It doesn't seem that anybody participating here has seen this biography. (Certainly I haven't.) The article says that the book is "about Begum 4-46 pp"; this is curiously unidiomatic and to me looks like the kind of thing typed by somebody who's nodding off at the keyboard. I wonder why we're taking it so seriously: for all we know it could be a typo for "pp 4–6" or whatever, but we're choosing to take it seriously. My own guess, no more valuable than anybody else's, is that it could mean "pp 4–46 passim". That's not unusual for a biography, and if we take it as evidence that a published writer has found the biographee's mother worthy or interesting enough to cover substantially, and if this in turn is taken to mean that the mother is notable, this would mean that the mothers of (wild guess) a quarter of the people who have sizable biographies thereby become encyclopedic. Does this not trouble you? -- Hoary (talk) 00:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - No, not at all. Having a book length biography is a criterion met by a tiny fraction of biographies here. And several members of this woman's family have had multiple biographies, very rare. She is related to notable people, notable in different ways and in particular connecting different religions - Sufism, American mysticism , and perhaps Christian Science, so research and exposition on this would be expected in a scholarly biography of the daughter. Ordinarily I would be amenable to merging and redirecting -which is after all what most of the sources (biographies of relatives) do, and would take care of almost all the cases which trouble you, but if there are too many notable relatives, which one should one merge with? I agree that there is some stretching here, because no one now editing has seen this (or other relevant books), but if it / they have a reasonable amount of coverage, I think we should keep this as a separate article, and should do so in similar cases. John Z (talk) 02:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[break for ease of editing]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ...... Dendodge .. Talk^Contribs 15:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What, again? And where is thoroughness lacking? -- Hoary (talk) 00:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t know exactly what is wrong with this article, is it the least ranked from the 2,500,000 articles--Puttyschool (talk) 02:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That has been explained at length above. Whether or not this article is "ranked" (?) highly or not is not the question here. On what is your keep vote based? --Crusio (talk) 09:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "explained at length above", According to what I understood from "above", average was keep--Puttyschool (talk) 19:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Keep--Puttyschool (talk) 02:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think that the fact that she came from a Christian American background and married an Islamic religious figure adds interest to the other points about her family and her poetry. Steve Dufour (talk) 03:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There must be hundreds of thousands of interreligious marriages, probably eveb millions. So how does this add to Begum's notability? --Crusio (talk) 09:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment During the period (1892, 1949)! And still remembered!.--Puttyschool (talk) 18:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, this was late 19th century, 1200 years after the establishment of Islam. "Hundreds of thousands" must be a ridiculously low estimate, especially given that there were always large populations of Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, etc living in Muslim-dominated areas, there must have been many millions over the years. --Crusio (talk) 06:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Technology is what break culture boundaries, but in the 19th century!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Puttyschool (talk • contribs) 20:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What on Earth do you mean with that?? Read up on your history, admixture between different populations with different religions has been going on for millenia, there's nothing new in that. There must have been litertally millions of couples like Begum and Inayat Khan before them. Granada had a muslim ruler and Jewish and Christian ministers (well, until the Castillians conquered them, of course). --Crusio (talk) 21:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even if we assumed million like "Pirani Ameena Begum" and "Inayat Khan", still both are known out of the million, this enforce keeping on the article--Puttyschool (talk) 22:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not Inayat Khan is known isn't an issue. Whether Begum is known is an issue. It's claimed that she gets a few pages in each of a number of books about other members of her family (similarly to the obscurer members of, say, the Bush dynasty), and it's also claimed that she gets a whopping forty-two pages of a book about her daughter. The latter claim is made in the form "about Begum 4-46 pp", and first introduced in this edit by User:Sergey Moskalev. I'd like to know more about it -- what do all those pages say about her? should "passim" be added? is it a mere typo? -- but unfortunately this is not the kind of book that's stocked by any library I frequent, and the content isn't available at Google books. Sergey Moskalev hasn't contributed since 20 July, but perhaps he'd come back to answer questions. I have just now emailed him to ask him to describe what the book says. -- Hoary 00:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the history of Spain, you will know the differences.--Puttyschool (talk) 22:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability is established by multiple, reliable, independent third-party sources. This person seems to have a number of books about her from a glance at the references section, they just need to be converted into inline citations. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 03:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Your comment goes to show something about the value of the "glance" you gave the reference section, and maybe of glances in general. This article lists six sources; it is obvious that not a single one of them is a book about this person (and no editor has previously claimed otherwise). -- Hoary (talk) 07:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep this huge discussion above is itself a proof that this material is valuable. Sergey Moskalev (talk) 17:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you saying that the fact that there's a lengthy argument between viewpoints [X] and [not-X] goes to show that [not-X] is correct? That would seem extraordinary. Or are you saying that assertions of insignificance are self-defeating? That would have a certain plausibility to it, but it's belied by the facts. Consider for example AfD/Sollog (4th nomination) and its predecessors, resulting in (well-deserved) deletion. And there are others, perhaps most drearily a this seemingly interminable series. ¶ But more importantly, your response is very disappointing. I took the trouble to email you, knowing very well that you would staunchly defend the article but hoping that you would do so in a persuasive and informative way, one that might lead me to change my own view and anyway improve the quality of the discussion. Specifically, it was you who added a reference to a book that, you wrote, uninterruptedly devotes over forty pages to Begum. Please either confirm that this is no mistake, or correct it (more detailed pagination within those 42, addition of passim, etc). If it is true, please describe the content in at least a bit more detail. (What is about this woman that took 42 pages to describe -- only that she was a good wife, good mother, and unpublished poetaster?) -- Hoary (talk) 00:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC); revised 04:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please check your personal e-mail I answer on your letter to me. All data about Bugum in book "Spy Princess: The Life of Noor Inayat Khan" by Shrabani Basu, M. R. D. Foot, Pir Zia Inayat-Khan in Amazon - http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0930872789/ref=sib_dp_srch_pop?v=search-inside&keywords=Begum&go.x=14&go.y=12 you may check all citations. Article about Pirani Amina Begum is for English Wikipedia, so I don't put on it Dutch, Italian, German, Norway etc references. What do you think is it necessary to add them also? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sergey Moskalev (talk • contribs) 06:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, these aren't necessary, and I'm surprised if I've ever given the impression that I thought that they were. However, if there is a solid reference in some other language, by all means feel free to add it. ¶ I never thought of looking inside the book at Amazon. Thank you for the link. Rather than saying she's on pp. 2–46, it would be better to say that mentions of her are on pp. 4–10 passim, 19–27 passim, 31, 39–47 passim, 119, 189–103 passim, and 205. She's mentioned by name on 28 pages. Here, from p.24, is an example that's both typical and telling: Goldberg was a rank outsider in this circle. Noor's mother, Amina Begum, objected to her relationship with him, as did her brothers and uncles. It's typical in that it says nothing whatever to help establish Begum's notability. It's telling in that it shows how, after twenty or so pages (it's unfair to assume that the main text starts on p.1), Amina [sic] Begum has had such an insubstantial presence in the book that the author thinks it's necessary to remind the reader that "Amina Begum" is the biographee's mother. ¶ I appreciate your polite and informative email, but really, this Amazon URL clinches it: the material about Begum in this one book appears to total no more than one page, and does not suggest that Shrabani Basu sees the biographee's mother as notable. -- Hoary (talk) 07:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Amazon, of course! I looked up "Women of Sufism: A Hidden Treasure" by Camille Adams Helminski. I do not get a single hit when searching for "Pirani", "Amina", "Ameena", or "Begum". There is a short chapter on Noor, in which it is mentioned that her mother was "Ora Ray Baker". That's the ONLY mention of Begum that I can find. There goes another "unimpeachable" reference, I think. --Crusio (talk) 09:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        See page 158. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 00:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I did, it tells about the last days of Noor/Nora Inayat Khan and that she got the George's Cross. There's not a mention of Begum or even the word "mother", as far as I can see. --Crusio (talk) 09:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this article has six references. The person is notable and she is mentioned in different and quite popular books. The fact that prof. Crusio still insists on deletion of this article probably shows his personal dislike of it, and that is not an impartial assessment of the situation Ivan Moskalev (talk) 17:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Dear Ivan, I would appreciate if you could read AGF. The arguments of Sergey and yourself to keep this article are, like all other "keep arguments" given up till now, rather weak. The references are all about other persons. The reference just added to the article by Sergey is about Begum's daughter. The long discussion here is because people keep saying "notable" without giving good arguments, which then needs a lot of words from other people to show the shallowness of those arguments. Note by the way that I am not the only one who thinks this article should be deleted. As for your personal attack on me, why would I have anything against Begum? I am not proposing any articles of her family members for deletion, for example. I propose this article for deletion because it lacks encyclopedic notability. Being mentioned in books about others is just not enough. Having said all this, I expect by now that the article will be kept. Despite the fact that AfD is not a vote most people closing an AfD just count heads. --Crusio (talk) 17:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree their some kind of Personal POV about this AFD, About notability she is notable--Puttyschool (talk) 20:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response My "POV" is that I want an article about a clearly non-notable person deleted. If you feel that I am doing something untoward, please feel free to put in a complaint. --Crusio (talk) 21:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response My "POV" she is a notable person, most of the world know about her--Puttyschool (talk) 21:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's great. Please give me your sources and I'll immediately withdraw my deletion nomination. --Crusio (talk) 22:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see, it is your deletion nomination, I can’t image that you did not hear about Al-Azhar_University publishing--Puttyschool (talk) 02:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, perhaps it is because I did not yet have my morning coffee and am not awake yet, but I fail to see what you are trying to say. I never heard about that publisher, but what is the connection here? --Crusio (talk) 09:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need more than a single cup of coffee, you don’t know anything about Islam or Sufism, even you don’t hear About Al-Azhar_University, and you are trying to judge this article!!!.--Puttyschool (talk) 11:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As Hoary said earlier, I can read and I can think a little. You seem to need some coffee, too. I answered "no" to your question whether I know "Al-Azhar_University publishing", I did not say anything about the university itself. I have googled the university together with the different versions of Begum's name and come up with squat. Can you please explain what this university has to do with this whole discussion? Earlier you said that "most of the world know about her". Apparently this is a well-kept secret (is this a conspiracy?), as none of you people arguing so vehemently that this person is notable is apparently able to come up with any reference showing that. Concerning your comment that people not knowing Sufism or Islam well are trying to judge this article: in general an encyclopedia's goal is to help inform people that do not know much about a certain subject. Articles therefore have to be written in such a way that they explain their subject to the novice and show why this subject is worthy of this novice's attention. --Crusio (talk) 13:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please revise your comments you said "I never heard about that publisher" this is something other than coffee!
"As Hoary said earlier" AND according to the conspiracy theories taking in consideration your long history with this AFD!!!?
"encyclopedia's goal is to help inform people that do not know much about a certain subject..." this does not mean they MUST know what you ONLY know, or what you WANT them to know.
The most interesting thing is you comment about "judging what you don’t know"--Puttyschool (talk) 14:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but even after multiple cups of coffee, I still seem to fail to understand what you are talking about. It frankly sounds rather incoherent to me, I apologize for being dense. In any case, things are simple: One good source showing notability for Begum is enough and we can be done here. --Crusio (talk) 14:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly I don’t know exactly what you are talking about, most of your comments are not related to the article itself, now what I can CLEARLY see is that “you are not familiar with the subject” and it is a matter of “personal dislike” as commented above, don’t you see the length of references listed in the article are longer than article itself!.--Puttyschool (talk) 01:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Puttyschool, let's not talk about Crusio; let's instead talk about Pirani Ameena Begum. The article on her indeed has a pile of notes and sources. However, their sheer number is insignificant. The question is rather of what they say. Begum was a good wife, a good mother, an early female western Sufi, the author of a single article published in an obscure journal put out by her husband, the author of verses a few of which have survived and were published in an obscure journal after her death. Two questions: (i) Is this all? (ii) Is this notability? (Incidentally, yes, I am not familiar with the subject; you are free to make me familiar with her. And I have no personal dislike or like of her whatever.) -- Hoary (talk) 02:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

“Ameena Arabic: أمينة” Purely Islamic Arabic Name for a western women!!!
“Amina Begum was one of the first female Sufi Shaikh ....”!!!
“....Ameena Begum's help he would never have been able to bring the "Sufi Message" to the "Western world"” !!!
“Poems”!!!
Sure all four points can establish notability also can be a cause for “personal dislike” as I pointed above--Puttyschool (talk) 04:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[bouncing some way leftward] The poems seem negligible: they weren't published; only a few survived her; these were published in a very obscure journal and republished on the web (within a single compact web page), to what seems to be a universal critical indifference. As for the rest, there could be something to them (though her husband's remark, while surely sincere, does not seem different from many husbands' remarks), but if so then why wouldn't she appear in Helminsky's Women of Sufism? (Or is Crusio wrong about this?) -- Hoary (talk) 04:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

During this period almost all Muslims were against publishing or even saying their wife names, may be this was the reason, another thing is "Camille Adams Helminski" is the only one who can decide, or is she the only reference ~~while some of her edits lack a reference~~.--Puttyschool (talk) 05:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)Btw I mean by references things like “translating portion of the Qur'an without approving the translation from Al-Azhar" any way I removed it.--Puttyschool (talk) 05:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't suppose she would be. But can you nominate any source that (a) provides more than the briefest of mentions and (b) isn't primarily about one or more other members of Begum's family? -- Hoary (talk) 06:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Western Sufi Shaikh are a small group compared to the total number of Muslims, another I’m not specialized in "Sufi Shaikh" studies; but I think someone will find the reference soon. About notability, she is a notable person, passed out before WikipediA notability guidelines.--Puttyschool (talk) 06:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan, I'm surprised to note that this was only your tenth (undeleted) edit to en:WP. Care to comment on this? -- Hoary (talk) 00:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Hoary, I'am surprised to see that a person, who doesn't specialise in religeous studies judges the notability of an article about religion. I noticed that you specialize on photography, and in my opinion a Lithuanian photographer isn't very notable, links to his works are not very precise and books have no ISBN and it's impossible to find them in libraries, but still, the information can be useful and interesting for people, who specialize or take interest in photography. The situation with Begum is the same, because the information may be interesting for people, who take interest in the Western Sufism of XX century. Please answer, do you consider yourself a specialist in comparative religious studies? Ivan Moskalev (talk) 08:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I haven't the slightest knowledge of comparative (or other) religious studies, or Sufism. (And I don't mind your asking me this at all.) However, I think I am able to read and think a little. I've just been to Category:Universal Sufism to see how the other articles there compare. The first item I clicked on was Hidayat Inayat Khan. The material about Sufism in the article is very terse and it's unreferenced; however, it's claimed that he has published about Sufism and has produced a substantial musical oeuvre. Shaikh-ul-Mashaik Pyaromir Maheboob Khan is less obviously convincing, but clearly there's something here too: he published, and material about him was published. ¶ My ignorance of religion is ecumenical: I don't know anything about, say, Baptism either. But in Category:Baptist writers I click on Michael Frost (confusing him for a moment with David Frost) and discover that he has published several books and is an invited speaker here and there: the sourcing for some of this is unsatisfactory, but the assertion of notability is there. Or again, Category:Russian Taoists: Alex Anatole "is now the head priest and president of the Center of Traditional Taoist Studies located in Weston, Massachusetts"; it's not clear how important this Center (which lacks an article) is, but Anatole too is not just described as somebody's son and father and the author of verse. ¶ I'm happy to discuss Lithuanian photographers: I know sadly little and it's very likely that you know more. Do come chez Hoary and let's discuss them there over a couple of glasses of Leffe. -- Hoary (talk) 08:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am getting a bit tired of those personal attacks above. I don't care one way or the other about Begum, my only concern is that this is an article about a person who misses notability completely. If personal attacks are the only arguments for keeping this article that you guys (Puttyschool and Yvan Moskalev) can come up with, then I think the case for this AfD is clear. Given the total lack of good faith here, I don't intend to participate much in this discussion any more, but I implore the closing admin to read through all of the arguments here and not just count heads. --Crusio (talk) 21:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To Hoary In your comment you wrote: "Comment on her publications (ii). The other publication is in "The Sufi" magazine No. 3 Vol. I, Sept. 1915. WorldCat lists The Sufi published in Southampton from 1933; The Sufi Quarterly published in Geneva from circa 1925, and, er, nothing else that looks similar. So I have no reason to think that this publication exists either". Before you tell that you use Copac in this case - "but it's one with historical and linguistic links to Britain and I therefore looked up the periodical Caravanseari (sic) at the convenient Copac". So we come back to "Sufi" magazine in Copac and what we see - http://copac.ac.uk/wzgw?id=080823577f8b85ae3fd161c539d8a20486ffba&f=u&rsn=2&rn=11 Location details: British Library. Care to comment on this? Sergey Moskalev (talk) 09:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes: good sleuthing, and my opinion of WorldCat has dropped a notch. So we now know that Begum was not only wife, mother, and niece of people, but also a one-time contributor to her husband's magazine, which can be found in a library. Good, good. I can't see how the information on her satisfies Wikipedia:Notability (people), however. -- Hoary (talk) 14:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - This article already satisfied the criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (people) after the first AfD in February 2008, so Wikipedia administrators decided to keep it! It is pity that people should spend their own time for discussions like this (again). Sergey Moskalev (talk) 15:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - - Dear Sergey, please read WP:Guide to deletion, under point 4 is described what one should do if one disagrees with a "keep" decision. This is exactly what I did. A generally accepted waiting period is one month, I gave it 6. I have seen AfD's go through 4 or even more cycles.... The current discussion has failed to render any evidence that Begum meets WP:BIO, so I think a second nomination was justified. --Crusio (talk) 15:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - about satisfying the criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (people) it satisfies, but what about POVs --Puttyschool (talk) 15:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Sorry Puttyschool, but just saying it is so, doesn't make it so... We still don't have any sources confirming that the criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (people) are met. And please stop these unwarranted accusations of POV pushing. Making a case that an article should be deleted, supported by rational, non-biased arguments, does not constitute a POV. --Crusio (talk) 15:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Notability is not established according to your POV--Puttyschool (talk) 15:53, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Exactly, I agree! Notability is not established according to anybody's POV, it's established according to WP:BIO. --Crusio (talk) 16:17, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Also Notability is not established according to your Understanding of WP:BIO. --Puttyschool (talk) 16:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Somebody will have to understand it... I guess that will have to be the closing admin. --Crusio (talk) 16:39, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is an interesting progression that the deletionist platform has evolved through in this discussion. First it was after the first AfD somebody was supposed to add sources, and after 6 months later it has not happened so delete. Then it was Okay, sources have been added, but the text of the article does not assert notability. Then it was okay, the article asserts notability, but notability is not inherited. Then it was okay, so it asserts uninherited notability, but the sources are unverifiable. Then it was okay, so you found the sources, but we found other sources which would have listed her if she was notable.... why all this effort to continually evolve the delete position until sucessful? Everything that was asked for has been provided. This really seems like a "delete for any reason, regardless of this discussion". We could prove she was both the pope and superwoman and that she invented the wheel, and I am certain that the other side would still say something like "but there have been alot of popes, and superheroes and inventors"... Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 15:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's one way of summarizing this discussion. The way I see it, the argument was and has been all the time: there is no notability. "The other side" as you phrase it, continuously comes with new arguments supposed to show notability. Each time this has to be responded to. All that has been shown up till now is that this person existed and was a loving wife and mother, and apparently her husband doted on her. Please explain to me how that satisfies WP:BIO. --Crusio (talk) 16:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And hoary, you specifically cited the worldcat as some preeminent arbiter source, when you thought the provided reference was not in it (00:49, 13 August 2008). Then when it is pointed out to you that it is in there and you just missed it, you say "good sleuthing, and my opinion of WorldCat has dropped a notch" and then trivialize the reference. (14:29, 23 August 2008). Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 15:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 14:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of bands named after places

I've been unable to verify most of these. Some are no-brainers (e.g. Alabama, the band, so named because they were founded by four people from Fort Payne, Alabama), but others are less obvious. Was Sugarland really named for a place? Were they named after Sugar Land, Texas, The Sugarlands, or what? Et cetera. This is just original research and trivia. And don't get me started on the red links. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:54, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable list. Unverified claims. Original research etc... Fails WP:V in some areas. The last AfD had opinions like "I've been looking for a list like this" or "Interesting enough". That doesn't cut it. Undeath (talk) 00:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, indiscriminate information even if sourced, and a trivial intersection of topics. Bands from a place is an encyclopedic list, but this is basically trivia. --Dhartung | Talk 01:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, at least until we rename the project trivipedia. This is WP:OR and certainly not encyclopedic. Frank | talk 01:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A victim of its own success. It was nominated shortly after its creation in April 2006, and one of the comments in favor of keep was "This list isn't a list of one-eyed horse thieves from Montana, it's about bands like Chicago, Boston, Alabama, and Japan.". Since then, however, it's grown from perhaps 50 well-known bands ("like Chicago, Boston, Alabama") to hundreds of entries (bands like Calexico, Enon, Missouri). Maybe those are famous bands, maybe not, who's to say, and that's the point. Wikipedia's criteria for a notable band is low enough that if they signed a recording contract with a major label, they get a page, even if they aren't . That which isn't obvious (Kansas was named after the American state of... man, it was right on the tip of my tongue) is just trivia (Cinder Road is "the road in Timonium, Maryland"). No longer interesting enough to be appealing, too much chaff and not enough wheat. Now it's just a dust magnet, but might be a good category on $25,000 Pyramid. Mandsford (talk) 01:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete that this wasn't deleted the first time around is a bit of a mystery. JuJube (talk) 02:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Interesting concept. It could be useful and does no harm to anyone. But why do a bunch of Englishmen have the right to name their band "Japan"? Steve Dufour (talk) 02:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOHARM. JuJube (talk) 04:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable list, per V oooooooooooor. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced and likely ORed list of trivia. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete is where I'm coming down on this one. Maybe the bands are notable, maybe the places are notable... but there is no reason I can see to have a correlation between the two.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep due to clear consensus to keep in first discussion and per Wikipedia:Lists (discriminate, encyclopedic, maintainable, notable, unoriginal, and verifiable). --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Consensus can change, and it seems to have here. "A previous AfD from more than a year ago was closed as Keep" is not valid Speedy Keep criteria. JuJube (talk) 19:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - If that were the case then we would not have such closes as the one discussed at User_talk:A_Man_In_Black#Burning_Up_Tour_AfD. Plus, the topic does get hits. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR #5 ("non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations"). Deor (talk) 19:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A list of an encyclopedic subject does not make us a directory. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lists are an important part of an encylopedia, and this one is no less trivial than many others. MarkSG (talk) 19:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Indiscriminate collection of information. The link between criterion and candidates is far too weak to warrant an article, and the scope is likely ridiculous. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The article is discriminate in that it has a clear inclusion criteria and organization. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Roi's right that it isn't an indiscriminate list. It's still a mix of the obvious and the trivial, but it's not indiscriminate. Mandsford (talk) 01:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. And improve sourcing through regular editing. As nom says some are obvious but other are not; clarify and source. A list of notable bands, as defined because each has their own article is only so interesting to me but my taste is hardly a reason to keep or delete. If we have proof that no one is interested I would be more compelled but this does seem to be a useful list to those who are curious as well as those who study these things as part of their music-related professions. Banjeboi 00:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Um ... who cares? I'm bright enough to know that "Alabama" has the same name as the state. It's far too trivial. BMW(drive) 22:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see Wikipedia:WHOCARES. Obviously those who created, worked on, and argued to keep across two AfDs care. I believe this article serves a great navigational, table of contents esque function. Moreover, the topic itself is covered in a variety of sources as well: [4], [5], etc, which means it is verifiable, unoriginal research, and because it is in multiple reliable secondary sources, meets our notability guidelines. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) MrKIA11 (talk) 14:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peder Christian Hersleb Kjerschow

This is a new article by an established user. I am listing it here because it appears that the subject fails the notability test. The article's creator asserts that the subject is notable, because he was a bishop for 27 years. The subject was also a relative of a Prime Minister. I contend that neither of these facts confer notability, and a re-reading of WP:NOTE seems to confirm this. The article's creator seems not to want to discuss the issue further, and while he has provided some sources (he says that not many are available online), in my view he has not provided evidence of the subject's notability. Exploding Boy (talk) 23:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Based on new information provided by the article's creator (see below) I am withdrawing my nomination at this time. Exploding Boy (talk) 23:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I wouldn't have started an article on him myself, but no special reason to delete one. There are sources for the information in the article. I'm not sure how important a bishop is in Norwegian society, but he was also the grandfather of the prime minister. (unsigned comment by User:Steve Dufour)
- Comment: Under "Invalid criteria" at WP:NOTE it specifically says: "that person A has a relationship with well-known person B is not a reason for a standalone article on A (unless significant coverage can be found on A); see Relationships do not confer notability. " It appears that Kjerschow's only personal claim to notability is having been a bishop. Is that sufficient per our guidelines? It's unclear, but I don't think so. Other bishops with articles here have other claims to notability, such as being authors, or being involved in historic events and so on. Exploding Boy (talk) 23:48, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In my opinion, as article creator, the article already asserted notability. Because:

In 1830, Norway had (and still has) an Evangelical Lutheran state religion. Free churches, Judaism and other religions were banned according to the 1814 Constitution. As such there existed only one organized religion in this Northern European country. The state church was structured into five dioceses at the time; Christiania (Oslo), Christianssand, Bjørgvin, Nidaros and Tromsø (later: Hålogaland). With one bishop per diocese, and no archbishop, there were a total of six religious leaders in Norway at any time. (note: this includes the King, the highest leader of the church).

Peder Christian Hersleb Kjerschow was such a religious leader for twenty-seven years. This is notable, and he was no doubt covered by his contemporary press, in books and the like. Biasing oneself towards Internet sources isn't feasible, as it effectively constitutes a version of the Google test. Notability does not expire. This is not to say that the 19th century religious leader is not covered by a number of Internet sources. He is, and this is reflected in the article.

It should be noted that the article does not exist because of his grandparenthood, although this constitutes an interesting part of his life. The fact that the article includes such information should not be used against the article. Punkmorten (talk) 23:53, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly don't suggest that his relationship with a famous person should be counted against him, but I wish you had (a) said all this before, and (b) added it to the article when you were first asked about notability. That would have solved the issue at the tag stage without the need to bring it here.

Based on the above I will withdraw my nomination for deletion at this time, with a request for Punkmorten to add the relevant information to the article. Exploding Boy (talk) 23:57, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Add the whole background about the Church of Norway? Punkmorten (talk) 23:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you making this so hard? Add the relevant information to the article so that the subject's notability is clear, per WP:NOTE. Exploding Boy (talk) 00:02, 18 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Last Generation of the Roman Republic

Fails WP:N. Google doesn't return much more than places to buy it, or read exerts. Leonard^(Bloom) 23:18, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The book is still in print (Amazon offers it, as well as B&N, Alibris, etc.) It was published via an academic press, so there is some intellectual merit to the book. Google Scholar turns up many cites of this book in other academic works. The author, Erich S. Gruen, is notable enough for his own Wikipedia article. Thus, the book seems to fit WP:NB for inclusion. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 23:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Mr. Vernon--Abusing (talk) 04:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article needs expansion and has multiple issues but here is another reliable source to add to the Google Scholar hits provided by Mr. Vernon. Editing issues are not a reason for deletion if there are reliable sources that establish notability.

Luce, T.J. "The Last Generation of the Roman Republic (Book Review)." American Historical Review 80, no. 4 (October 1975)--Captain-tucker (talk) 01:51, 21 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. - Mailer Diablo 17:52, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

United States and French Governments Compared

It's an essay; a comparison of the two. WP:NOT#OR. Leonard^(Bloom) 23:14, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sorry. All we need is the articles on each one so that we can compare them ourselves. (p.s. there are over 100 national governments in the world. Should we have 10,000 articles comparing each one to each other? [Of course I know that the USA and France are much more important than most in the history of government.]) :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 23:17, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's an essay. Additionally, I do not think that this can be salvaged, as this topic, in my opinion, will always be unencyclopedic. « D. Trebbien (talk) 00:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems like a version of Government of France tailored to an American audience, i.e. without a global view. There is no particular reason we should make these comparisons; instead, we should make sure that the appropriate base article is complete and clear. --Dhartung | Talk 01:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's a personal essay. Wikipedia is not a repository for your homework. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 01:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not because it isn't interesting, but Wikipedia doesn't encourage "apples and oranges" articles, where X is compared and contrasted with Y-- simply because there are infinite combinations of things that can be compared. The ban on "original synthesis" (as opposed to "original research") seems kind of harsh at first encounter, but it just means that the knowledge is placed elsewhere. I'd encourage the author to contribute to Government of France, keeping in mind, of course, that the English language Wikipedia isn't an "All-American" service. Mandsford (talk) 01:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well said. « D. Trebbien (talk) 23:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since it's an essay. It's underreferenced and contaons some OR and SYN. Majoreditor (talk) 02:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, original research. Stifle (talk) 14:18, 18 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. Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sadio Ba

Sadio Ba plays for K.S.K. Beveren, which is a second division football club. Therefore he fails WP:ATHLETE as he doesn't play for a fully professional league. Tavix (talk) 23:13, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, don't forget his past clubs. He played for KVC Westerlo and maybe others in the Belgian top league, which AFAIK counts as professional, which is the yardstick. Sources are needed though. Punkmorten (talk) 23:20, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has played in professional league. Tovian (talk) 18:29, 22 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 Redirected both to parent article. Black Kite 10:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Public Service Announcement 2000

These two tracks from The Marshall Mathers LP, "Public Service Announcement 2000" and "Kill You", are not notable. As WP:MUSIC#Songs states, a song needs to chart somewhere or meet general notability criteria in order to be notable. Instead, none of these songs have been subject to multiple reliable and independent sources.

Note: The only sourced section in Kill You, that discusses the lawsuit by Loussier, is already present in The Marshall Mathers LP article (see here). Nothing else present in the two articles can really be included as there are no sources and the content is also original research. Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 23:03, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I just noticed that User:Leonard^Bloom had proposed Public Service Announcement 2000 for deletion per WP:PROD (link), however User:SCB '92, main author of both articles, removed the template without indicating a specific reason for this. Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 23:17, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Previous prod; fails WP:MUSIC#SONGS. Leonard^(Bloom) 23:21, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And no, there was no canvassing involved. Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 00:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes. I only found this through my AfD noms above. Leonard^(Bloom) 00:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 05:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Curzi

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Line 7 White (Montreal Metro)

A line unlikely to be of any significance. Georgia guy (talk) 22:52, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A cursory ProQuest search shows that the line garnered a bit of media attention at the time, and its failure appears to be brought up when any new lines are proposed. I'm not sure what your criteria is for "significance," but it does appear to be notable, then and now in its historical context. Keep, as such. user:j (aka justen) 14:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)ak[reply]

Comment. Can you please explain its notability in detail?? Georgia guy (talk) 15:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was a major civic works project that was widely covered in the local media at the time. user:j (aka justen) 21:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. This article on a proposed Métro line is no less valid than the article on Line 3, which was re-used as part of the AMT network, but is not called "Line 3". This line (7) actually appeared on transit maps for many years, so it is important, simply as part of the history of the Montréal Métro, along with governmental reasons for cancelling the project. As well, this route may be re-used, possibly as a Tramway (surface). Also, in keeping with STMs policy of line-numbering, should a different route on another part of the island be proposed, it would be numbered as Line 8. There would be a knowledge gap as to why the Métro lines are numbered 1, 2, 4, 5, 8. Polybandrous (talk • contribs) 18:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Is anyone predicting this line 8?? Georgia guy (talk) 18:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't seem relevant here. user:j (aka justen) 21:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, major civil engineering projects may be notable, even if they are not built; for instance the yet unbuilt Ringeriksbanen has achieved GA status. Former AfDs may have shown that stations on the proposed line would not be inherently notable, but the line as such would be by far, considering the amount of media and political attention it must have received, especially taking the findings of User:J into account. Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:14, 20 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Directory hive

This article was erroneously created to describe an Interface Builder NIB file. The correct terminology for this is a "bundle", and I have relinked the InterfaceBuilder article to reflect this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quuxly (talk • contribs)

Delete Google concurs. MediaMob (talk) 21:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I looked into this a while ago and couldn’t find any usage of the term, but never got around to doing anything about it. (Trivia: actually, the correct term in OS X usage is “package”. Bundle (NEXTSTEP) needs cleaning up to clarify the distinction. It’s on my to-not-get-around-to-doing-anything-about list.) -Ahruman (talk) 10:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:42, 20 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 into List of Unification Church affiliated organizations. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

American Freedom Coalition

Although the organization was fairly notable, the only source of information for the article is one somewhat critical news story. The AFC itself has no website or other source to provide its side of the story. Steve Dufour (talk) 22:40, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Merge (as in, you could have done that without needing an AfD) to List of Unification Church affiliated organizations per WP:NNC, where it can be built up and broken out again if sufficient sourcing is found. Jclemens (talk) 00:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Jclemens (talk) 00:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Merge: agree, this one is a no-brainer. What RS discussion exists (e.g. here & here), tends to be very much in context of its relationship to the wider Unification movement. Therefore it needs to be in an article that either already contains that context, or duplicates this context (the latter in itself giving rationale for merging). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The article is just a stub. Redddogg (talk) 19:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:42, 20 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

World Association of Non-Governmental Organizations

Not notable. The potentially controversial information in this article is uncited and unclear. A search for "Wango" turned up almost no information, but lots on Wango Tango. Steve Dufour (talk) 22:27, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Jclemens (talk) 00:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Unification Church affiliated organizations per WP:BEFORE and existing proposal already in article. Jclemens (talk) 00:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In this case there is not evidence that it is "affiliated" with the church. Steve Dufour (talk) 00:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. There certainly seem to be a lot of ghits for Moon and WANGO. Several are obviously Wikipedia and derivatives, or the WEED folks, but some are from tparents.org and other Unification church sites. Jclemens (talk) 00:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW Ban Ki-Moon and Sun Myung Moon gets you about 3 times as many. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 03:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that before an article on WANGO is written on WP someone has to write one in a reliable source explaining exactly what WANGO is. I am a Unification Church member and I don't understand WANGO and its relationship to the UC. Steve Dufour (talk) 02:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is from a Stanford University blog: I think it’s curious that “Mun” [alternate spelling of Rev. Moon's family name] is also the acronym for “Model United Nations.” :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 02:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

|WANGO is not a Unification Church organization. They are not founded by Rev. Moon, their board is independent and elected by the members, who are not affiliated with the Unification Church. There only connection is that they have received money from the UC, although most of their money does not come from the UC. If receiving money from a UC organization is evidence of inclusion under UC organization, then we have to put the Catholic Church as a UC organization.24.44.161.136 (talk) 15:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a reliable source to support these claims? I have yet to see any evidence that WANGO has any existence beyond furthering Unificationism. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Until such time as another Cite from another actual NGO shows up, I would use WP:FRINGE to support my "Unwarranted promotion of fringe theory" feelings. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 03:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In this case the fringe theory is true, however it is still a fringe theory. Steve Dufour (talk) 03:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the WANGO people themselves would like to see this entry deleted, since it seems to have been started by a competitor, perhaps CONGO, as a way to minimize their impact. CONGO has been openly expressive that they see WANGO as competitors.24.44.161.136 (talk) 15:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a reliable source to support these claims? I have yet to see any evidence that WANGO is in any way a substantive competitor to CONGO. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: understanding this organisation really needs the context of the larger Unification movement. What third-party information on it is available (e.g. here, although I'm unsure that this is RS) attests to whatever notability it does have being in connection to furthering the aims of this movement, rather than as a representative of NGOs (the legitimate organisation for which being CONGO). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the mentions of WANGO from the UC site unification.net. So the UC's support of it is not a secret, it has just not been reported in the mainstream media as of yet. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge So far the article is only sourced by the group's own website. If more information is found then it could be kept. Redddogg (talk) 19:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note I was just told by a church member who works in Barrytown that WANGO was not founded or run by the Unification Church, it just receives some financial support. This contradicts the (uncited) statements in the article. Steve Dufour (talk) 03:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At least eight of the twelve WANGO International Council Members hold leadership positions in Unification organisations. (I would further point out that none of them appear to be leaders of prominent non-Unification NGOs.) Given this, and a number sources asserting a connection, it seems reasonable to accept this connection. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 07:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No one has denied that the church supports WANGO. However, the opening sentence of List of Unification Church affiliated organizations says: "There are a number of organizations founded by Sun Myung Moon, the founder of the Unification Church, which are affiliated with that church." So far there have been no sources which say WANGO fits this profile. So that is why I suggested delete rather than merge this article. If a reliable source explains WANGO to us then a WP article on it can be written. Steve Dufour (talk) 11:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History of WANGO: 2000 demonstrates that Moon, and the Unification Movement more generally, played an intimate role in the founding of WANGO. Further, Culture of Responsibility and the Role of Ngos by World Association of Non-governmental Organizations Conference, Taj I. Hamad, Frederick A. Swarts, Anne Smart, Anne Ranniste Smart, explicitly calls Moon the "founder of WANGO" (p12). In any case, the List introduction is descriptive not prescriptive. If a UC-affiliated organization was discovered that wasn't founded by Moon, it would be reason to change the description, not to exclude the affiliated organization. And the information doesn't indicate that the UC merely "supports" WANGO, it indicates that it dominates it, to the extent that WANGO appears to have no discernible purpose beyond furthering the interests of the Unification Movement. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 19:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

False Dawn by Lee Penn also describes WANGO as "founded by Moon" (p124). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 19:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will change the opening section of List of Unification Church affiliated organizations then. I still don't think there are enough secondary sources to write a WP article on WANGO however. Steve Dufour (talk) 19:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW Lee Penn seems to be most notable as a critic of the United Religions Initiative. Steve Dufour (talk) 20:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article has zero verifiable information. Not a single credible reference. Mybesteffort (talk) 23:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This looks like it doesn't even exist. You can't find any info on it anywhere. It just looks like an old website. Dontneednotrouble (talk) 04:15, 23 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). --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 05:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Terror Titans

{{db-repost}} declined. This article was recreated with the assertion that a future eponymous comic was in the works. Current sourcing for that claim in the article is limited to forum posts. Aside from the new rationale, the article is not substantially different from the deleted version. The same arguments that resulted in a consensus to delete then apply now. Protonk (talk) 21:59, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Until meaningful coverage shows up. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:03, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article sources have changed. ~~The status of the comic is now referenced by the DC comics website and Comic Book Resources~~. I don't know enough about comics to note if that is enough, but it looks like it is getting there. Some discussions of the sources are here and here. Protonk (talk) 22:21, 17 August 2008 (UTC) To clarify, the article itself hasn't changed, but those links have been posted on my talk page. Protonk (talk) 22:22, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We don't use a company's self-promotional materials to get around WP:CRYSTAL, nothing has changed since the last deletion, and all those reasons still apply equally. ThuranX (talk) 22:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems perfectloy notable to me. Artw (talk) 22:54, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Artw (talk) 22:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the previous version was rightly deleted as the upcoming limited series was "sourced" to a forum thread, which is why I made sure I had as many of the relevant details as possible to hand when I restarted it (for the record I was going to start the article but then I saw it had been deleted so spent an extra day to get it to a point where I was happy with it). The mere fact that it is forthcoming doesn't automatically qualify the article for deletion - WP:CRYSTAL says "All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable" which this is. It also states it should be included if it is "almost certain to take place" and while we can never be 100% sure until we have the actual comic in our hands, given the fact that the publicity machine is rolling in earnest, it has been solicited [6] and the details posted on DC's site [7] we are as certain as we can possibly be. (Emperor (talk) 23:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Comments
1. There is a little more than just DC solicitation material. Not much, but some.
2. The general frame of mind has been to treat announced comics series like announced movies. There can be an article if there is more than just rumor.
3. That being said, the bulk of "more" here is translating into a minor team in a single story arc. There isn't anything inherently notable about the team, or that arc.
4. There is also a question about just how notable the announce limited series is.

At this point, it feels like this article is falling short, though maybe not by much given the standing practices. Is there more right now, today, that can be added to the article from a real world context? (added due to edit conflict) Question specifically for Emperor: Is this a case of an actually notable title or a case of "New book coming, has to have an article?" - J Greb (talk) 00:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No I don't feel every comic needs an article but a spin-off series from one of DC's big titles (it is one of their top 10 ongoing titles which consistently charts in the top 50 comic titles with sales around 50,000) is a relatively big deal. (Emperor (talk) 00:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Keep and Comment: As Emperor - rightly - notes, the WP:CRYSTAL guidelines in no way prohibit the article, nor the use of promotional announcements to source things that will be released.

I disagree with ThuranX's interpretation and statement (above) that "self-promotional materials" are being used to circumvent the the Crystal-balling guidelines. The apparant knee-jerk dismissal of "promotional materials" is out of place here, as the solicitation information is not being used to promote anything, nor to make original or qualitative judgements, merely to fulfil - as Emperor notes - the WP:CRYSTAL guidelines call for verification. Solicitation is that verification of (impending) existance.
Incidentally, reading the original AfD discussion for the "reasons that still apply" I can see Five "Delete" calls, and one "Keep". The reasoning behind those five calls are:

Delete ONLY to then redirect to Teen Titans#Terror Titans; as then noted, this section doesn't exist anymore. Invalid
Agreement with ThuranX's initial AfD reasoning. Valid
Delete due to unreliable sources; Solicitation of a new series is reliable; comics in which the Terror Titans are mentioned are reliable. Invalid
Delete as the TT are only notable for one thing (appearance in Teen Titans); this will no longer be the case come October. Mostly invalid
Delete based on sources: "If someone can find a reliable, independent source in that bin of usenet, blogs and db's... I'll help save the article."; Emperor resourced the impending solicitation, and Protonk (above) is not now calling for re-deletion. Invalid (as 'Delete')

So I fail to see which arguments from the initial AfD are supposed to support this new one.

J Greb's points are worth considering, although it seems inaccurate to equate (as it appears) "a DC solicitation of a DC comic" with "a rumor" - the intention (announcement) to make a film is not a valid comparison to a concrete two-months-away-publication-date solicitation. Very few comics are solicited and not released - fewer still from one of the bigger companies. There are still unanswered questions about how notable to mini-series will be, McKeever is talking about a "new era" for the Titans, but then he does have a vested interested in saying that..! Nevertheless, this is clearly intended to boost the Titans' profile in a manner similar to the Sinestro Corps War. And that was a crossover, not even a mini-series... Time will tell, but in the meantime the Terror Titans are a team, have made a notable enough appearance in Teen Titans to be given a spin-off mini-series and will soon star in that mini-series. Seems notable enough to keep. ntnon (talk) 01:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just keep firmly in mind that the solicits are not concrete. Books can, and have been delayed and/or cancelled even though orders were taken. Also, IIUC, retailers have recourse if the issues they receive do not match up with the solicitation. This is an industry acknowledgement that "things change". Solicits are something that should be taken with at least a grain of salt.
Also you may want to watch comparing intents and publications. "Sinestro Corps War" was billed and planed as an "event". To date zip has been presented that "On the Clock" and Terror Titans had the forplanning and intended effect. "Clearly intended" is one person's interpretation, an assumption. It is just as valid to say DC is milking a story arc for a second financial hit. We don't know. We're guessing on a convention announcement and a solicit. That is akin to starting an article for a film only based on a studio's announcement of "W intend to...". - J Greb (talk) 01:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, fair points. Although potential (and frankly unlikely) delays don't invalidate the article as it exists, neither do changes in explicit content don't - in both cases Terror Titans #1 will be published. Cancellations after solicitation are - as I wrote - very rare for DC and Marvel - I can only think of a couple for DC, and none are analogous.
Yes, comics are generally made returnable if the contents/writer/page-count changes after solicitation - but again, that's only a factor here if this article is structured to refer to explicit potential events - it is not. It is primarily an article on the team which HAVE appeared already, with notability added to by the mention that they will be spun off into their own title.
"Sinestro Corps War" was a surprise sleeper hit, intended as a reasonably minor crossover which suddenly sold well and gained critical and fan approval. The "Terror Titans" arc was also fairly well received - hence the spin-off mini-series. Geoff Johns retooled and spruced up Green Lantern as well as the Teen Titans. Both were slipping in sales and reception; SCW was intended to (and did) boost the profile of GL, the Terror Titans are intended to do the same. Of course it's an assumption, but the intent is there - stated by the author. As I wrote, we don't know if it'll pan out that way or fizzle, BUT this page is first-and-foremost about the team. The only issue is whether the team is a flash-in-the-pan or has any kind of longevity. That they've been granted their own spin-off goes some way towards answering that question. It's not at all comparable to compare two announcements (film/comic) since the team was already in place and in existence. A far better comparison would be to a short film which has been announced as the subject of an expansion/remake. Thus the article details the short film (team) and the intention of the expansion/increase in profile & notability (spin-off title). That's surely a fairer comparison - there's substance without even noting the future comic, while the transient theory of notability is given credence by the future comics potential existence.
(...maybe that's a little convoluted, sorry!) :o) ntnon (talk) 05:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Three things:
1. The potential for solicitations to be with drawn or wrong makes them unrelaiable as an initial or only source. "But DC and Marvel really don't..." is fine if you are assuming that this won't be a minority case.
2. Before you present the argument that Terror Titans is to "highten the profile" of the Teent Tians, find a reliable source other than your own gut for it. This also means look at what you are comparing it too. "Sinestro Corps War", as you have stated was a cross-over running through the GL books, and that is a good indication of where DC wantred the sales. Terror Titans is positioned as a stand alone, self contained mini.
3. As Protonk points out, the impitus has been "The got a mini, that has got to be notable." That's asssuming facts not in evidence. And even if the mini is found to be notable when published, using that as windowdressing to bring back a much larger chunk of content that was seen as non-notable is a tough sell.

-J Greb (talk) 10:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I feel my position is being misrepresented somewhat (although I think the misrepresentation is a good faith mistake). I nominated the article for a repost deletion under CSD-G4 and later AfD because I felt that the article fit the criteria. When I made the AfD nomination I tried to be as equivocal as possible. The line at the end of this nomination where I noted that previous arguments apply means only that the article (at the point AfD2 started) was substantively identical to the deleted article. My promises at that AfD and on the restoring admin's talkpage remain. I'm trying to look for some reliable sourcing to pin this future comic claim. Once I do, I am happy to withdraw this nomination and help further build the article. I didn't think at the moment of renomination that the forum posts predicting a new comic sufficed (and I don't know enough about the biz to judge CBR's reliability), so I'm not sure where the insinuation that I'm breaking some solemn promise comes from. Either way, this AfD can stand on its own. I can think of two reasons:

This article could still be considered (in some sense) crystal balling it. See my and emperor's talk page for some good reasons why it shouldn't be thought of as such, but the fact remains that the subject is somehow going to become notable in the community's eyes when they are the subject of an eponymous comic series and they are not yet subject of one. The article then hangs on the prediction of that comic series.
I hate to argue that we should follow process for process's sake, but the community decision regarding this article has already been made. At this point, as we are discussing things, circumstances haven't fundamentally changed with regard to this article. Nomination and consideration of this article seems to be a perfectly good community check to see if consensus has changed on the subject. If it has, it has. If it hasn't, then we can wait until circumstances change significantly.

This is the kind of article where policies and guidelines are fuzzy. We have what seems to be a good gut sense of CRYSTAL over at WP:MOVIE, although that only applies to films, but we don't have a running consensus on how to treat future project in other situations. I have no problem with hashing out this in practice and applying what works. This AfD is part of that process. As such I'm inclined to watch it finish. Protonk (talk) 05:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I would argue that things have changed since the article was previously listed for deletion. If the previous version had been listed in the comics and animation deletion sorting (as it should have been) I would have voted for it to be deleted. Articles are deleted for all sorts of reasons but it doesn't mean all of them should stay deleted forever - Final Crisis was deleted for crystal ball gazing and I voted in favour of deletion, because it was started far too early - I recommended it be restarted closer to the launch. Since Terror Titans was deleted we have had the actual publication date published and the publicity build up to the launch (the movie equivalent of the release days in each territory being announced and the leads doing interviews - well based the crystal ball limit for films). WP:CRYSTAL criteria include if it is verifiable (it is now, it wasn't before) and if it is "almost certain" to appear (it is now, it wasn't before. It doesn't require a 100% guarantee, as no one can offer that, but nearly all comics solicited get published close to the date the companies say they will be released on - this surely ticks the "almost certain" box). It is a pity someone jumped the gun on this one, and unfortunate this got deleted so close to time it became possible to satisfy the requirements to show it isn't crystal ball gazing, but things like that are going to happen occasionally. We should be able to deal with that and the article should be judged on its own merits. (Emperor (talk) 14:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]
  - I certainly don't mean to insinuate that you have no basis to make that argument. All this AfD is (to me) is a good faith disagreement over that judgment. If this article hadn't been deleted by AfD rather recently, this disagreement would amount to a note on the talk page. As it stands, I think an AfD is an appropriate venue to determine this. Protonk (talk) 16:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm inclined to keep this article, for a few reasons. Mainly, if the series came out this Wednesday, we'd have an article, I think. I'm all for blamming speculative, "This-might-happen-at-some-point" articles, but we do have some well-sourced confirmation that this is in the pipeline. Given that it will likely be a notable series once it is published, I see no reason to delete this version of the article, only to have it recreated once the series comes out. If we lacked sources that confirmed the series, or if the article was all speculation, then a delete would be in order - but I'm not seeing that here. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 16:32, 18 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 11:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Augusta Exchange

Reads like an advertisement, article fails to establish notability (having the largest movie theater in the area does not make it notable). Adrianwn (talk) 21:50, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Agreed, it reads like an advertisement, but that can be fixed. Should we delete every article about shopping malls that aren't notable? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Shopping_malls_by_country

--Abusing (talk) 03:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. —Dravecky (talk) 05:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as being a regional power center with significant press coverage (see [8]) does qualify it as notable and verifiable. The article needs expansion and better references but those are cleanup issues, not a reason for deletion. - Dravecky (talk) 11:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - In serious need of a cleanup, but enough WP:RS's present to satisfy Notability concerns. I also think that more could be gleaned out of the ref's provided than just a list of stores. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 11:57, 21 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). --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 05:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Emochila

Author declined prod. Company that does not provide sources to assert notability. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 21:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've read this article fully. It contains relevant content, is footnoted with approximately 6 sites, and does not appear to be written maliciously, falsely, or without merit. I don't understand why it would be deleted. The main reason for deletion claims that the company does not provide sources to assert notability. What else could you need? Partnership affiliations from at least 4 major players, and audio at conventions? Cbrubaker (talk) 13:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)cbrubaker[reply]

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

I agree with cbrubaker. I am a CPA doing research on using this company, and I've read the entire thing. If there is a question about notoriety, they are the prime company used by everyone in my field for website devleopment, and that means the entire private-practice certified public accountant industry. I think this article is a good reference tool for us. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.188.206.202 (talk) 17:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC) — 190.188.206.202 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at UTC timestamp [optional] (UTC)..[reply]
~~Weak delete~~. It is a well written short article, but the firm doesn't meet Wikipedia:Notability. The main criterion for that is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", while most of the sources here are press releases, which are not "independent of the subject". Has the company gotten coverage in newspapers, trade papers? CNet, PCWeek, Wired, The CPA Technology Advisor, CPA magazine, any of the other dozen or hundred computer or accounting magazines that exist? There is one exception, [9], which is a real article in a real paper, why this is only "weak", but "multiple", meaning more than one, are preferred to show that the company is notable. Find one more article like that, and I'll change to keep. --GRuban (talk) 18:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User:Cbrubaker removed the AfD notice on the article on August 7. I have added the notice back in.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*GRuban - Thanks for noting about the article in the paper and that you noted that you required at least one more. You even mentioned one of the trade magazines, The CPA Technology Advisor, who did a complete independent study on Emochila, hard printed and unsolicited in their December 2006 Trade Magazine. This is listed in the references of the Emochila Wiki Article (http://www.cpatechnologyadvisor.com/article/article.jsp?id=1016) and should suffice, right?

~~Here is another one provided by the Ecommerce Journal which is not a press release, and penned by an independent source. I am going to add this to the reference pages as we speak.~~

~~Kwintern (talk) 16:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)kwintern~~[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jamie^☆S93 12:31, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Keep per additional coverage referenced above. 2 non-trivial unrelated sources meet Wikipedia:Notability. --GRuban (talk) 18:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete user:190.188.206.202 removed my previous comment here, "The AfD notice has been removed from this honking load of spam." I'll expand on that comment by saying that this article should be deleted for being spam, and the company itself is not notable. The alleged sources are press releases or otherwise created by the company or its officers. 66.57.189.230 (talk) 19:19, 16 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, PeterSymonds (talk) 21:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ I agree with 66.57.189.230: the references given are not relevant to this discussion, and the "Press Coverage" links are press releases and/or blatant advertisements and/or from non-reliable sources. Plus, half of the article reads like an ad. Adrianwn (talk) 22:10, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I happen to think the article should stay. I'm a CPA in Washington state (see www.donrodman.com) who utilized this article a while back to determine this firm's merit in the field. I do not think the article is advertising based, nor do I feel that it's unreliable. I happen to subscribe to the CPA Tech Advisor, and it has published articles on Emochila not based on their payment for ad space but based on their independent research. It's a solid industry mag. Sure, some of the Press Coverage are press releases. Many articles are such. However, they meet the required 2 non-trivial, unrelated articles. Donrodman (talk) 22:42, 17 August 2008 (UTC)donrodman— donrodman (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at UTC timestamp [optional] (UTC)..[reply]

Which of the links do you mean? Adrianwn (talk) 22:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Press releases do not meet the requirements of WP:Notability, which specifically says " "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc."--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:54, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: I recently edited this page in order to help readability and formatting. NO content was changed or removed in any way. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 23:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and checkuser. The article fails WP:N and WP:RS. Also, the above comment by donrodman was his first edit. A bit suspiscious. Undeath (talk) 00:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sufficient references, and they don't seem to be all press releases. DGG (talk) 09:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It might seem so at first, but have a closer look at the references:

a BBB Reliability Report - doesn't indicate notability
irrelevant to notability
from company website - not a reliable source (RS)
a review - can you show that having a review at this site indicates notability?
from company website - not a RS
from company website - not a RS

and if you look at the press coverage:

from company website - not a RS
press release of a partner company - definitely not a RS
advertisement/press release (?) or a partner company - see above
"Greg asks Justin Curzi from eMochila what visitors will hear about when they make their way to the eMochila booth during the guided tour." - obviously not an independent source, hence not reliable
press release - hardly a RS
read the text - this is definitely not an independent source!

So no, the article does not cite any reliable sources which indicate the notability of the subject. Delete. Adrianwn (talk) 11:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reference number 5 is displayed on the company website, but is pretty clearly a scan of an independent newspaper article. Or are you suggesting that it's a fake? I doubt it. Number 4 is a non-trivial review by an independent magazine - "can you show that having a review at this site indicates notability?" - well, that's what notability means, that multiple independent reliable sources have "taken note" of the company, written non-trivial articles about it. That's really all that can be expected. If this were a singer, we'd accept articles in an independent music journal, since this is an accounting software company, we need to accept articles in an independent accounting software journal. --GRuban (talk) 13:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to weak keep. Thanks for pointing that out, I didn't look into all company-links (sorry for that). As for the review: not every review indicates notability. I could publish an independent online-magazine (or even material magazine) and give a review, and the reviewee wouldn't automatically become notable. My objection was exactly this: is the source of the review notable enough so that his reviews indicate notability? I.e, is it reliable? Adrianwn (talk) 14:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an accountant, but from digging around, it looks like a respected source in the industry. We have an article on it, CPA Technology Advisor which isn't great, but says it was around since 1991, so it's at least not a fly-by-night journal. More important, I found this: [10] in which Reuters seems to be very proud of receiving an award from them. Reuters is one of the top N news agencies in the world, for a very small N, so I doubt they would be proud of receiving an award from just anybody. --GRuban (talk) 16:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've been reading since the article was requested for reinstatement on 17 Aug. The above logic and research looks correct. Articles noted look non-trivial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.216.246.229 (talk) 19:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC) [reply]

I have struck the comments by socks and blocked users. Undeath (talk) 05:15, 19 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 Needs substantial real world sources to show notability. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:02, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FreeEMS

non-notable project; not in release, no external sources, no real notability claim. Brianyoumans (talk) 21:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - blogs and forum posts, but no reliable sources -- Whpq (talk) 16:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - reliable sources do exist but are not listed, and the subject does appear notable. Consider tagging article for referencing, but it does contain a lot of potentially useful information. MediaMob (talk) 21:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe I didn't look hard enough, but where is the reference to FreeEMS in that link? The article is about "do it yourself EFI", but I don't see any mention of FreeEMS. Brianyoumans (talk) 02:22, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - make that two pairs of eyes that were unable to find any mention of FreeEMS in the article. Based on the comments below, it would seem that blog and forum posts really are the only coverage available. -- Whpq (talk) 12:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - You are both right, the above page predates FreeEMS, however as noted by Koivusalo when something is a developmental thing the only references will be those that are directly involved. Should I urge all members to post their own webpages about FreeEMS to make it "notable"? You need to separate developmental free software which doesn't exist outside the internet from popular culture which is widely referenced everwhere. Fredio54 21/8/2008 3:35 AM NZST —Preceding undated comment was added at 15:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There is no point stuffing around here really. The project is new and although there have been references to it not posted by me on various sites including Grass Roots Motorsports all but one of them that I know of have been on forums by interested parties. I know of one commercial site linking to diyef.org and FreeEMS, but that probably isn't enough for you (it is a wiki site, but only Stuart the owner can edit it). The funny thing is, I could buy 10 domains and put up pages (edited as easily as this is) referencing FreeEMS and you wouldn't complain. This process seems arbitrary and easily thwarted.

If the wiki rules are hard one-eyed rules (as I guess they must be to prevent misuse in certain circumstances) then there is little point discussing this as "Brianyoumans" will win the argument based on objective sources and it will be gone. I've taken a backup of the content so that I can put it back when it becomes "wiki-notable", thus deletion will incur no material loss other than less publicity for a fundamentally good cause.

Even though the project is probably not "wiki-notable" I think you should step back and consider that it is in fact highly notable as being the only FOSS engine control solution currently available and being worked on actively. The history is that there was an active site (the site still exists, but is not active) diy-efi.org with a community of people on it working on home brew EFI solutions. 2 of them (Bruce and Al) put out a kit to make some cash. It was/is called MegaSquirt. Because people are generally after the quick fix it took off and the old site faded and became unused. What wasn't apparent at the time and still largely isn't is that the entire effort is a profitable enterprise and not actually open source as defined by the OSI. Basically the entire "diy efi" community is now supporting a business and there is no free and open source solution bar FreeEMS available.

To lose a little publicity for this will not ruin the cause, but at the same time it won't help it either. I'm sure you have a conscience somewhere inside, so you will live with the decision you make in the end ;-) Lastly, the project IS in release with 15 versions of the firmware available and 5 versions of the thermistor tool available and 9 versions of the hardware schematics available. Because it is DIY "released" means a very different thing to a commercial project. So, if you stick by the rules and objective "wiki-notability" is the rule, then you should delete it. If you have morals and can see with two eyes and a mind, you probably shouldn't. Your call. It'll be back up in a few months anyway with more progress and a rapidly swelling community regardless so it's inconsequential what you choose to do now.

On another note, why does my "watch this article" not work? I expected emails about changes to that page and never got any. Fredio54 20/8/2008 8:30 PM NZST

Comment - ~~"To lose a little publicity for this will not ruin the cause" would seem to indicate that this article's intention is for advertising.~~ -- Whpq (talk) 12:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - How do you advertise something that is free (as in speech AND beer)? I don't believe you can. It is more akin to evangelism that advertising if anything. I was originally inspired to put it up by the MegaSquirt page as it seemed to be to be a biased representation of the truth. The articles intention is to give a brief summary of what FreeEMS is all about. AFTER I put up the article I noticed the traffic generated by it, not before. This is a positive thing for both development (more talent arriving and contributing) and for those that need such a system and don't want to be nailed down with dodgy licensing and/or pay a fortune. I've spent a bunch of my own cash on the site and dev gear, not to mention a huge amount of time on code and I am asking nothing in return. I think calling it "advertising" is being somewhat naive.

Additionally, there is an article missing which would complete the set of 3. The article missing is VEMS which should be up to provide a balanced view from all sides. I could probably do a fair job of starting such an article, but true VEMS people would need to finish the job. You should note this is a direct competitor to VEMS and MegaSquirt (both commercial products) and I don't support VEMS or MegaSquirt, but I do think there is a need for more information more readily available about VEMS. Fredio54 21/8/2008 3:30 AM NZST —Preceding undated comment was added at 15:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment whether you want to call it advertising or evangelism, the essence is that the intention is the promotion of a product. That the product is free of cost and/or free of licensing encumberments is irrelevant. You might want to review WP:ADS. -- Whpq (talk) 17:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Once more, you obviously missed it : "I was originally inspired to put it up by the MegaSquirt page as it seemed to be to be a biased representation of the truth. The articles intention is to give a brief summary of what FreeEMS is all about. AFTER I put up the article I noticed the traffic generated by it, not before." effectively it assists people find out about something they are interested in in a non-technical encyclopedic way. Surely the point of an encyclopedia is to provide information about topics in a comprehensible way? That's what the wikipedia docs seem to say anyway... Fredio54 (talk) 17:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - fair enough, your intention wasn't promotional, I retract any statement about advertising. -- Whpq (talk) 18:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Thank you for being reasonable. Sometimes that is hard to find on the internet! :-) Fredio54 (talk) 18:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While FreeEMS might not be that widely recognized project at this point I feel claiming it as non-notable isn't fair. Quick search finds several EFI related forums where Fred posted his original announcement for first public release earlier this year. Those threads have vast amount of both positive and negative comments. Many people with criticizing comments didn't at first understand it's not just about creating another EMS/ECU/EFI, it's about creating one truly open both hardware and software wise which is something that has never been done before. Many earlier projects that started open such as Megasquirt and VEMS have gone to for-profit business since. This has been possible due murky licensing. FreeEMS is GNU GPL / TAPR OHL licensed to prevent such faith.

I also bit wonder what are requirements for being reliable source. I can see how projects own webpages and forums often can be biased. However as I mentioned there's discussions on various third party forums and blogs have more critical content. Neither FreeEMS / DIYEFI.ORG admins nor their friends have control over these medias.

There's also already several versions of released code. I admit it's still far from complete plug-and-play setup but this is supposed to be DIY, not PNP. Given speed both software and hardware is currently improving this project is going to generate quite some interest in near future and become easier to use. Eventually someone will likely start selling kits as well - which is fully allowed under license unlike with current "free" EMS's.

Causes for deletion decision on Wikipedia's side are "non-notable project; not in release, no external sources, no real notability claim". Non-notable - false. Not in release - false. No external sources - depends on if forums can be considered external sources or not. Otherwise there's very little information from third parties currently available. No real notability claim - dunno. I doubt proper solution is to setup bunch of links to diyefi.org advertising FreeEMS. While someone could use such approach at least I feel it would be cheating system to gain unfair advantage. (Johan, 20.8.2008 14:54)

—Preceding undated comment was added at 08:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep There is a difference between notability and widespread knowledge; developmental material is available immediately, and the source is the actual development forum. The original deletion proposer has made article deletion a hobby of his. Grounds for deletion are his own opinions and biased toward deletion.Koivusalo (talk) 15:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of the above keeps are from people involved or interested in the project. I am involved in a lot of deletions, but I don't think I try to delete things that don't deserve it. I'm not an admin, I just propose things for deletion and other people agree or disagree. Mostly the articles I propose for deletion end up getting deleted; I think I have a pretty good sense of what is an appropriate article and what isn't. Brianyoumans (talk) 17:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "I think I have a pretty good sense of what is an appropriate article and what isn't." - I don't :-) I was looking through some of them earlier... Fredio54 (talk) 17:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'd like to add that the only reason the auto delete thing didn't occur is that an interested wiki reader signed to the forum and PMed me about the deletion. That user benefited from the presence of the page which seems to me to be the point of the wiki, ie, to help people find out about things that interest them. That wiki users comment was this : "In case you haven't noticed some Wikipedia admins don't think this is serious project and are going to delete http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FreeEMS page tomorrow (18th).

Anyway I think you're doing great work on FreeEMS. I've spent countless hours during last two days reading posts on forum.". If he hadn't done that it would have vanished without the opportunity to discuss it here. That IMO is not on as most people don't visit every page they are interested in every week and some other users who do may not comprehend what the page is about in full especially if it not of interest to them. Fredio54 (talk) 18:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to clarify: things don't 'auto-delete'. The article would have been deleted by an admin, who would have looked at the article and made their own decision about deletion. So, in addition to everyone who might have encountered the article over 5 days, at least two people would have to agree on deletion for it to occur. Brianyoumans (talk) 20:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So that we are on the same playing field here, people might benefit from looking at WP:NOTE, and perhaps WP:NOT, particularly WP:SOAP. Brianyoumans (talk) 20:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "So that we are on the same playing field here" - that's funny Brian, I didn't think this was a game... Thanks for the links, but I for one had already read them all. Fredio54 (talk) 21:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -

I have been heavily involved in electronics and engine tuning for about 15 years. I got into a so called open source solution to learn more about engine management from a DIY aspect for my own needs. I wanted a lot more flexibility, and quite frankly I was unprepared to wait for the next incarnation, that in my opinion will probably be just as restricted and more expensive than the originals.

I searched for DIY EMS on Google and hit the Wiki pages first because Wiki has always struck me as unbiased and generally accurate source of information. Since then I have been involved on the DIYEFI.org forums designing hardware, producing schematics for PCB layouts, sourcing components and obtaining quotes for professionally made PCB's, using my professional contacts to assist this project become something everyone can be proud of. The positive contributions by all the members is going towards producing a system that is built from the ground up using a superb and pretty future proof Microcontroller family with plenty of scope for what us engineers and hobbyists do best.

The schematics and code are available for all to see, as will many variants of PCB overlays designed modularly for true adaptability for adding your own touches, preferences or requirements to make an engine management system that is suited to all our needs not that of a couple of people wanting to sell you the bare minimum with limited scope for development.

There are many members of the forum that have invested serious time money and effort into this project, we know what the goal is, there is light at the end of the tunnel and with that level of determination and broad range of skills and experience we will not see it fail. We have never met face to face and we all live in different countries different time zones and yet we have achieved so much already. How can that be be classed as non noteworthy? what ever happened to freedom of speech? and freedom of free information?

FreeEMS......One hell of a co-operative effort that I am proud to be part of! Davebmw (talk) 21:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC) — Davebmw (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Hypnotherapy in childbirth with possibility for merging in info there. Black Kite 10:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Natal hypnotherapy

This page is about an alternative midwifery technique that seems to have firm commercial roots. No scientific sources whatsoever, so it's questionable if any reliable sources can be found. These would also define notability, although notability for CAM-methods might be looked at differently by some. Basically, I feel this is unsourced quackery. Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 21:17, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 21:22, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hypnosis is hypnosis. Useful content could be merged into hypnosis. JFW | T@lk 22:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JFW RogueNinja_talk 00:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~, I found this news article, which will be useful, but a single independent source isn't enough to establish notability. This could be mentioned in a section in the article on hypnosis but this subject doesn't have enough reliable sources to be the subject as an independent article. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge to Hypnotherapy in childbirth, with new sources and the removal of the advertising in the current article we can have a reasonable stub. Tim Vickers (talk) 15:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re: 'unsourced quackery' - personal disbelief in hypnosis should not put this article up for deletion. There is a considerable body of medical research on the benefits of hypnosis in childbirth which I can put in if required: I point you to Alice A. Martin, PhDPaul G. Schauble, PhDSurekha H. Rai, PhDR. Whit Curry Jr, MD, 'The Effects of Hypnosis on the Labor Processes and Birth Outcomes of Pregnant Adolescents', http://www.jfponline.com/Pages.asp?AID=2223&UID=, Jenkins, M.W., & Pritchard, M.H. 'Hypnosis: Practical applications and theoretical considerations in normal labour'. (British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 100(3), 221-226, 1993) http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119312851/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0 [edit - it's not liking that link for some reason but you can google it], Harmon, Hynan and Tyre. J Consult Clin Psychol 1990 Oct; 58(5): 525-30; Milwaukee. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2254498 ...and so on - there are plenty more! Would having a research section including these links be welcomed? --CaramelDigestives (talk) 09:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no personal disbelief or any personal reason to start this discussion; please do not take this discussion personally. My search for "natal hypnotherapy" retrieved no citations, but clearly there is a body of evidence related to hypnosis and childbirth (see for example PMID 17054175). Based on your arguments I therefore change my vote and suggest we rename the article (because "natal hypnotherapy" seems to be mainly a commercial term), remove any unsourced facts from unreliable sources and rewrite it with reliable scientific sources.

Keep and rename to ~~hypnosis and childbirth~~ Hypnotherapy in childbirth. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 10:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise, did not mean to strike a personal tone. I was wondering why this page is different to the pages for the mongan method, i.e. hypnobirthing, and the bradley method for natural childbirth, both of which are commercially available alternative midwifery techniques which don't seem to have been objected to - I tried to base the page on them. Are they also in violation of Wikipedia codes, or have I missed the thing which makes them acceptable?--CaramelDigestives (talk) 16:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have the same objections against hypnobirthing as I have against natal hypnotherapy, and I suggest this article be merged into one article called Hypnotherapy in childbirth. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 16:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to hypnotherapy in childbirth: This is basically promotion based on a single book/method with zero independent, reliable third-party sources at present. This particular technique, if notable, could be covered in the more general article, but a standalone is unwarranted with the current level of sourcing. MastCell ^Talk 21:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per previous suggestions but with the exception that perhaps the merged article should be renamed Hypnotherapy in pregnancy and childbirth. Many of the discussed methods do not solely consist of using hypnosis for the birthing process but also throughout the pregnancy (with the aim of preparation, of controlling fears and preventing various ailments). An expert is probably needed for this topic, but getting all the methods into one article will be a good start. Sassf (talk) 22:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Agree that merging into a masterpage of hypnotherapy in pregnancy and childbirth is the way forward. --CaramelDigestives (talk) 09:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not very familiar with this process - discussion seems to have died off, it's been a week, and the consensus is merge - can I go ahead and merge the articles mongan method, natal hypnotherapy, and hypnosis in childbirth, rewriting where appropriate, into a master piece entitled hypnotherapy in pregnancy and childbirth? --CaramelDigestives (talk) 13:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An admin is supposed to close the discussion and decide the result. Then there are various other little tasks they do to finish the whole thing off, including enacting the decision. Hang on a little while, I'm sure it will get sorted, there's probably just a backlog. See Wikipedia:Deletion process - you shouldn't close the discussion and decide a result yourself as I'm afraid that is seen as a conflict of interest. Sassf (talk) 13:55, 22 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 and salt. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Battlefield 3

AfDs for this article:

Crystal ball article about a video game. Entire article is based on a supposed "leaked" document posted on a fansite in October of last year about a game that might be developed sometime maybe. Beeblbrox (talk) 21:13, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In light of the previous unanimous AfD's, I am also asking for a generous helping of salt. Beeblbrox (talk) 21:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 21:19, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing has changed since the last AfD. WP:CRYSTAL and WP:V. Also the Gameplay section is just copied from the BF2 article by replacing 2 with 3. THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 21:55, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete It should be speedy deleted not afded. It was deleted two times. There is no source available. --SkyWalker (talk) 06:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete (G4) and salt — Blatant recreation of deleted material intended to shirk the deletion process. Hence, the necessity to salt the earth and prevent further recreation/disruption of Wikipedia. MuZemike (talk) 08:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G4. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 16:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment on speedy The problem sometimes with a speedy is that since I had not seen the previous ,now deleted, versions, I can't speak to whether this version was simply a recreation of that material or a new version with the same flaws. Also I hoped a 3rd AfD would be enough to get creation protection, not always the case with speedies. Not that I'm actually disagreeing, it is obviously not an appropriate article and I figured the outcome of this AfD was a foregone conclusion before I even opened it. Beeblbrox (talk) 20:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete and salt - no sources; the document only might be related; the Gameplay section is copied. Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 22:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per G4. Fin ©™ 15:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Time to make a smoothie out of the WP:SNOW and the WP:SALT. Beeblbrox (talk) 19:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll bring the adult beverages (of course, only for adults and not for me, as I am on the wagon right now). MuZemike (talk) 21:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G4. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 17:41, 22 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 (G3) and salt. The last version was substantively similar to the previously speedied versions. The author, GoobletovMedia (talk · contribs), and the author of the first two versions, Ed1992ed (talk · contribs), have both been blocked indefinitely. Blueboy 96 22:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Goobletov

Contested prod. Two-time speedied G3, this article was rewritten so that now the author admits this is a brand new game. Per WP:SCRABBLE, now is not the right time for a Wikipedia article on it. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 21:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Could this be anything but a hoax, nonsense, vandalism? With the claim that a country club wants to adopt it? No attempts to provide sources, claiming the game was invented this month. JNW (talk) 21:20, 17 August 2008 (UTC):[reply]

If you hit the opponent with the Goobley, then you win a 1/3 and the opponent's 1/3s are reset to 0. If the opponent is unable to continue playing due in incapacitation then you not only win the game but you win a certain number of the opponent's livestock, depending on the populous of the opponent's hometown/hamlet, village.

The net is made out of any objects available, be it gold or sticks. Perhaps gold sticks.

You must play the game with tennis racquets and a Goobley (Tennis ball, pigs bladder will suffice)

Delete Obvious hoax/vandalism. In the previously deleted versions, if I recall correctly, the game was invented in the 1600s. Now, in an apparent attempt to give it some credibility and explain the lack of a single Google hit of a 400 year-old game, it was invented this month. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Either a hoax or simply a made up game (there's a difference). Exactly one google hit and it's to Wikipedia. Article now states "Many have protested that this is worth a wikipedia article". Created by a user called User:GoobletovMedia which is possibly conflict of interest. Creator needs to read WP:SCRABBLE if this is an actual game. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 22:19, 17 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 (nomination withdrawn). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Billionaires for Bush

This is an unnotable organization, and has been tagged as such since March. A lot of the article is written as original research because there are no reliable sources throughout most of the article. Tavix (talk) 20:33, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although it sounds like it's real, there is no evidence even though the article says they got a lot of press coverage. Steve Dufour (talk) 22:49, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a non-noteworthy group. The article lacks reliable third-party sources, which is a tip-off that the organization doesn't merit inclusion. Majoreditor (talk) 02:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A reluctant delete. Sad as I am to say it, I have to go with the delete crowd on this one, because I don't think there will ever be sufficient sources to satisfy notability. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing to keep after seeing new reliable sources. Great work, everyone! SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Here's a source, from the New York Times no less: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/19/politics/campaign/19ROVE.html. Try the Wall Street Journal, too, if you can access it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.187.76.80 (talk) 13:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Majoreditor. Stifle (talk) 15:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep A crappy article from a Wikipedia sourcing perspective for a group that is unquestionably notable and has received extensive media coverage, this search at The New York Times turning up 371 references alone. This search at Google News Archive turned up 502 sources, though there might well be some overlap. I'm not sure what search terms were used by those who could not find any sources, but I used the term "Billionaires for Bush" (in quotes), with a great deal of success. Wikipedia:Deletion policy requires nominators to do due diligence to research the notability of article subjects and to edit and expand articles before heading over to AfD. I will be happy to add some sources on my own, but notability is unquestionable based on the scope and breadth of sources covering the group, not much of a surprise given the organization's penchant for (and success in) obtaining media coverage. Alansohn (talk) 17:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am surprised to find that many sources for it, thanks for people who rescued it. Tavix (talk) 23:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then would you consider withdrawing your AFD? SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, I think I'll let it work its way through, just in case there are anyone else that wants to comment. Tavix (talk) 01:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:V and WP:RS. Mostlyharmless (talk) 09:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability and reliable sourcing established. Banjeboi 00:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There should be no doubt that the initial concerns have been remedied adequately. __meco (talk) 06:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Improved sufficiently to demonstrate criteria met for inclusion per WP:ORG and WP:RS and well done to the WikiFoundIt Entities for their sterling efforts and results. Plutonium27 (talk) 18:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw Nomination. My original concerns have been met, and a surprisingly good amount of work has been added to the article. Seems like it is notable after all. Tavix (talk) 23:50, 21 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). --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 07:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abbas Ansarifard

Contested prod. Subject fails notability. There is no significant coverage. ~ Eóin (talk) 20:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are no references, and this article has been in existence for over two months; not notable. Wikieditor06 (talk) 13:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- Ned Scott 07:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Ned Scott 07:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Needs citations for verification. Probably could be restored, I see some notability here. --Lord Sunday 22:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. A fee sources exist [11] and there are probably more in Persian. Chairman of a top tier football club seems notable to me. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:49, 23 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. - Mailer Diablo 17:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nikki Jackson

No reliable sources, and doesn't pass the criteria at WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 20:03, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom.--S_RX 20:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil (talk) 20:57, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Awards are minor and not well known Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet the WP:PORNBIO criteria and hasn't been covered enough to meet the general notability guidelines either. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. JoshuaD1991 (talk) 22:31, 20 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. - Mailer Diablo 18:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sandie Caine

No reliable sources, and doesn't pass the criteria at WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 20:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom.--S_RX 20:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil (talk) 20:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - She has one BGAFD award but those awards aren't exactly well known. We seem to value the FAME Awards which is also fan voted but that has coverage from adult press like AVN and XBIZ. I'm hedging on this but it's hard to find reliable sources on her other than relying on her website (which unfortunately doesn't provide a biography). I'll keep looking. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:41, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO JoshuaD1991 (talk) 22:30, 20 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) 18:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carpent tua poma nepotes

Contested PROD. Wikipedia is not a dictionary and - well the article gives nothing more than a translation... Gunnar Hendrich (talk) 19:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I moved the info and soft-redirected it to the wikitionary entry. Thingg ^⊕^⊗ 20:03, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

STOP!!! Please. I am going to EXPAND the article. Hence I marked it as a stub. I am going to tie it into the philosophy and history values of this term for Roman history -- hence the Virgil citation, and then also show how it is even used in modern popular culture, for instance, at a park in Croatia where they are use it (briefly) in the walk-around to teach children to plan with an intergenerational mindset.

Why is everyone trying to squelch and hijack an article that they didn't start? Can you hold up for even 5 minutes? Sheesh!!!! --Petercorless (talk) 20:06, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Comprimised of OR. Non-notable phrase. Tavix (talk) 21:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although the article has been expanded quite a bit since it was nominated, it seems most of the new content is original research. The references are an article about Roman slavery, not about this phrase, and conspiracy theory websites. The idea that we should consider those reliable is laughable. Beeblbrox (talk) 21:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - what is the point of the article?? It is not notable in any sense of the word and article seems to have a lot of OR
Delete it certainly seems like original research or WP:SYN. The quote is verifiable. The information about slavery is verifiable. but there is no sign that secondary sources have interpreted the quote to mean what the article here asserts it means. Protonk (talk) 22:11, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deleo. This is an essay dressed up as an encyclopedia article. Original research and synthesis as well as bias. --Dhartung | Talk 01:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- The author needs to establish that this Latin tag is notable by citing authors who have used it. If this is not done before the end of the AFD period, it should be deleted. I suspect that the translation is incorrect: I thought that "nepos" means nephew not grandson and poma is probably apple (not fruit in general). I will watch for improvement and change my vote if necessary. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:58, 21 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Georgina Smith

No reliable sources, and doesn't pass the criteria at WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 19:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom.--S_RX 20:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil (talk) 03:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. JoshuaD1991 (talk) 22:31, 20 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). The page is properly referenced and notability has been established below. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 07:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ya Chang

Fails WP:N, WP:V. Wizardman 19:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:BIO, WP:BLP, WP:N, WP:V, WP:REF.--S_RX 20:33, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- BIO and N are the same thing; REF is a style guideline. It looks as if you are piling on WP links to appear authoritative, but does it hold weight? Punkmorten (talk) 23:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There may be a violation of Wikipedia:WTF. Otherwise the point seems to have been made. --Dhartung | Talk 01:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unreferenced biography with no evidence of notability. --Dhartung | Talk 01:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He is actually a notable (but not really popular) comedian and recording artist in the Philippines, see here, here, and here. You may also want to know more about him here (that is, if you understand Tagalog). Starczamora (talk) 17:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —bluemask ^(talk) 10:44, 20 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 Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kate of Kale

Fails WP:BAND, WP:V. Wizardman 19:42, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom.--S_RX 20:34, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, the "official website" returns a 404 error, and there are no press links at all--hoax? Even at best, it's an unverifiable MySpace band, which would make this a delete. Heather (talk) 03:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – A mention of the band at MTV Asia News at least verifies that this is not a hoax. It's tough to find Singapore media sources. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:14, 21 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 & redirect to Porting#Porting in gaming. (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 19:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arcade perfect

Dictionary definition of a non-notable term. Possible WP:NEOLOGISM. Wikipedia is not a WP:DICTIONARY. Tavix (talk) 19:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & Redirect to Porting#Porting in gaming. In the context of the larger article, I believe it will have much more value on Wikipedia. The term is a measure of quality though, that I have heard of. Perhaps someone can find a reference? (At work so can't look up game topics right now). Turlo Lomon (talk) 20:06, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect per Turlo Lomon. It's not an uncommon term, but I think it'd be better in the article on Porting. JuJube (talk) 20:07, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 21:01, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as above. Ham Pastrami (talk) 02:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Porting. It has value, but it can't get beyond a dictionary definition where it is now. Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 23:41, 18 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. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Voice Mail (band)

Non-notable band. The only source is a direct copy-paste from a press release on the band's myspace page. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 19:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although their notability is clearly borderline this Jamaican newspaper article asserts they've charted in Jamaica, which would meet criteria #2 of WP:MUSIC. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:MUSIC#C1 for [12], [13], and the album review at allmusic. Even if the ref provided by Gwen Gale above doesn't count towards C2, it still counts for C1. Based on the info in the ref's, C11 could be met too. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 03:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Extra, Oh, and they've toured overseas, [14]. I've added all these references to the article too. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 03:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just would like to say THANK YOU for helping me with this page! I am not meaning to be out of compliance with Wikipedia. I simply have not mastered all of the technicalities of the site. I appreciate those who are for keeping this page and who have helped in the discography section. This band is getting more popular globally and I just thought they deserved to have a spot on this wonderful site. I will continue to update this page however you see fit if it will keep the page open. Please advise me on what further needs to occur for it to meet your standards of not being up for deletion. Thank you. --Davis1922 (talk) 05:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Change to keep. Information has been provided that the band is notable. Could someone close this? Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 14:12, 18 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) 18:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars 30th Anniversary Action Figures

The article has no sources, seems like an advertisement. sicaruma (talk) 19:21, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is written like an advertisement and is WP:CRUFT. This is the farthest thing from encyclopedic I've seen in a while. Tavix (talk) 19:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looks pretty bad, but be mindful that Star Wars PEZ looked bad as well. For things like star wars (where there is a LOT of merchandizing and the trademark and copyright holders can only police so much), some independent sourcing is likely to crop up. Try the SW merch wiki to look for some guidance on sourcing and also try google books (Beware, MOST of those don't relate to the subject of the article but instead can be used to find books like The Official Price Guide to action figures (don't be fooled, official doesn't mean published by lucasfilm or hasbro in this case). This article may or may not have sourcing to move beyond WP:DIRECTORY, but don't sell it short without looking first. Protonk (talk) 21:50, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The fact that a series of figures was issued does not seem worthy of its own article. The listing of every figure, etc. does not belong in an encyclopedia. Give a link to Hasbro or to a fan site. Steve Dufour (talk) 22:57, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable, and its simply cruft. I doubt even cleanup could help this one out. Perhaps it could be transwikied to a Star Wars wiki. RobJ1981 (talk) 05:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'd cite WP:NOTCATALOG but this "article" is missing the price tags for it to be citeable. Still, I can't imagine for this to ever be an encyclopedic stand-alone article, there's nothing to merge, the title is not exactly a search term(?), therefore delete. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a catalogue. Stifle (talk) 15:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lacks any third-party sources/coverage indicating recognition by the press or other consumer response -- which is what differentiates this from Star Wars PEZ. --EEMIV (talk) 04:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:49, 20 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. Does not meet WP:N; no coverage in reliable sources. Tan ǀ 39 16:39, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bare Butt Hill

Speedy and Prod both declined. Non-notable nudist location with (as the author admits) only one source to be found. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 19:17, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no in depth reliable sources whatsoever, aside from a book serving as a directory of naturist places. - Icewedge (talk) 19:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not advertising. Advertising indicates that some benefit or profit is to be gained by the posting. In this case, neither is true. The land is public and therefore no profit or benefit is gained by putting it in wiki. I have posted a verifiable source and only factual information about the site. Perhaps you could be more clear in your objection and tell me how the information is not factual, nor verifiable, nor unbiased. If you are wanting a published research study to substantiate the claim that this place exists, there will not be one forthcoming. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomas1138us (talk • contribs) 20:50, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Local slang for a local wilderness spot, there is nothing encyclopedic about this. Article creation could have been driven by some kind of social networking, which is a form of advertising. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:07, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In my short time on wiki, I see lots of people appealing to the word "encyclopedic" incorrectly as a basis for protest. Brevity does not mean a topic is not "encyclopedic." The criticism of "local slang" is meaningless -- it is the chosen name for the site. I did not name it. Simply because notability is emerging or recently recognized does not disqualify existence. Similarly, because items are new it does not mean they do not exist. A photo of a sign over the entrance is as meaningless in this case, but that appears to be where this is headed in order to qualify for inclusion. The last criticism, that "Article creation could have been driven by some kind of social networking, which is a form of advertising," is speculation. I would pose the reverse - that the social networking would follow the existence of the site. That there is a social network about it should lend credence, not borrow it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomas1138us (talk • contribs) 22:02, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia's notability policy instead of trying to guess about what's happening here. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:05, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing in the notability guidelines that would preclude this entry that is of factual basis . Rather, the only objections to this article as yet remain based in opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomas1138us (talk • contribs) 23:37, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article offers no evidence this location, under this name, has gotten wide and significant coverage through independent reliable sources. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:45, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: I edited the page to improve readability, including formatting w/ bullet points, combining multiple separated paragraphs in the same post by the same user, and changing spacing. No content was removed or edited in any way. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 00:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all verifiable places are inherently notable. --Polaron | Talk 18:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notability. Fails WP:RS. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notability demonstrated by coverage in independent, reliable sources. Eluchil404 (talk) 11:36, 23 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 coverage in reliable secondary sources, fails WP:CORP. Black Kite 10:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tympanic Theatre Company

I speedy deleted this as a non notable organization, but it was recreated without significant improvement. On the web, I see only press releases and stuff from the group. I got no Google news hits. Sources in article are form the company itself. Not notable as not having significant media coverage. No verifiable, reliable sourcing. No assertion of notability. Not meeting WP:N or WP:CORP or WP:GROUP Cheers, Dloh cierekim 20:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm working on this article, and realize I need to add more external references validating the Theatre Company. Would a column from an FSU newspaper on the founding of our theatre, our inclusion in the Chicago Theatre Database, and other Chicago theatre show listings help?

I'm talking about links to:
http://www.theatreinchicago.com/playdetail.php?playID=2505
http://chicagotheaterdb.com/companies/168
http://www.thedressingroomnews.com/2007/september/articles/theatre.html
https://securesite.chireader.com/cgi-bin/Archive/abridged2.bat?path=2007/070824/MSPLINT&search=tympanic
http://www.timeout.com/chicago/events/fringe-storefront/64025/589774/the-house-of-weird-death —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abszeph (talk • contribs) 21:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:abszeph

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:41, 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, Wizardman 19:14, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No coverage by reliable secondary sources, not notable IMO. RMHED (talk) 19:54, 22 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) 18:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lupin the 3rd (2009 film)

Apparently fails future film notability guidelines. No prejudice towards recreation when reliable sources indicate that shooting has already begun. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 19:07, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Isn't there an article Lupin_III talking about the whole film and manga franchise? Once references are available, adding it to Lupin III would seem to be more appropriate. Turlo Lomon (talk) 20:12, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 00:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An article seems premature at this point. Anything about this new production can be covered in Lupin III for now. PC78 (talk) 00:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice per above: no reliable sources verify that production has begun yet. Cliff smith ^talk 01:28, 18 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:59, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simtractor

While there were a fair number of Google hits for this game, I was unable to find anything like a reliable source, all the links in the article are either to the games official site or fan sites. Beeblbrox (talk) 19:06, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 19:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are no reliable, third party sources. The article been orphaned from the start. I see no way to defend this article. --Abusing (talk) 06:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Numerous blog references. Unfortunately there are no reliable sources. Axl (talk) 19:07, 18 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 (default keep). Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 03:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Union Avenue Opera Theatre

This article doesn't meet the notability guidelines for wikipedia as an amateur opera company. It was started by and is still largely supported by a local church and the company does not belong to OPERA America (professional organization for opera companies in US). Nrswanson (talk) 18:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A difficult call. They perform in a church, not a theatre, and seem to employ a pick-up orchestra. It looks as if the chorus are amateur and the soloists are young singers who are looking for nominally 'professional' employment. Can anyone clarify the status of this company? --Klein zach 06:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A company (UAOT) of 13 years' standing with 33 opera productions in their original language (which the Opera Theatre of Saint Louis (OTSL) doesn't do) seems notable enough to me. How is the claim of an amateur opera company supported? My reading of their website is that they use emerging artists, but professional none the less. They use volunteers for front-of-house duties, but they seem to have at least three paid artistic/administrative positions. In 2008, both the OTSL and the UAOT produced four operas. Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment.Although UAOT may now do operas in other languages, their history does not indicate that this has been so for very long see here. They seem to have adopted that policy only recently. Also, unlike OTSL which has been reviewed by Opera News and other international media, this company has not achieved any attention from media outside of Saint Lewis. Also OTSL has an internationally recognized young artist program with several well known singers having particapated in the program (such as Susan Graham). UAOT can not say the same. I think this is still a very young company that is only semi-professional. Since it hasn't achieved recognition by any national opera publications, does not have any recognized talents involved with the organization (including the directors), has not been covered by anything but local media, is a relatively new company, holds its performances in a church, is not a member of OPERA America, employs an amateur chorus and semi-professional orchestra, and employs unknown/unestablished singers I don't think this company is notable.Nrswanson (talk) 08:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question Are there any regulations in the US to make sure that so-called 'professional singers' are actually paid? If not, the word 'professional' may not mean very much in connection with companies like UAO. --Klein zach 11:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notability is established with coverage in reliable sources and not on editor's opinions as to whether the work and history of the opera company is significant. The StL Post Dispatch has sustained coverage (reviews) of the company's work over many years indicating they are notable. -- Whpq (talk) 16:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Doesn't mean much. The STL Post reviews community theater as well and other local events. For a professional company to become notable they have to be recognized in media beyond local news (the emphasis being on independent third party sources). There are lots of opera magazines both on-line and off-line that cover regional opera around the US such as Opera News, and its a bit odd that the company has never been reviewed by one if it is notable. Nrswanson (talk) 20:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I tend towards WP:NOTPAPER, and consequently see the notability bar as being set rather low. If a major daily like the StL Post Dispatch is taking note of this group's work over a sustained period of time, then it's notable for me. Perhaps the intersection of WP:NOTE and WP:NOTPAPER might turn out different for another editor, but it lands on the side of keep for me. -- Whpq (talk) 20:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question Can you tell us why you regard the StL Post Dispatch as "a major daily"? Do you live in the area? My understanding up to now is that community-supporting local publication reviews don't qualify as media coverage. --Klein zach 00:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply It is the daily newspaper for a major metorpolitan area including region surroundng St. Louis. -- Whpq (talk) 10:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to this the StL Post Dispatch ranks 26th in the USA. Isn't it a local newspaper - not one of national importance? --Klein zach 01:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Why does the paper need to be of "national importance"? -- Whpq (talk) 04:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply- It doesn't have to be. However, media coverage that isn't local is a sure sign of notability whereas local media coverage isn't necessarily a sign of notability. As my summary below sums up, there are a variety of factors here to consider and not just one mark against notability necessarily meens the company is not notable. I write many articles on opera companies in the US and in general I can almost always find a source outside of local media with a few exceptions. In those instances where external media coverage is unavailable I look for a few other factors. 1. Are they a registered professional company with Opera America. If they are a member (professional member not affiliate member) than they are notable. 2. What kind of orchestra and chorus do they employ. Are they professional and are they paid. 3. What kind of singers work with the company. Are they professional and are they paid. (a fact not always apparent even with some so called professional companies in the US) 4. The history of the company and any influence that may have on notability. You have to look at all these factors as a whole. A case in point would be Light Opera Oklahoma which I couldn't find external media coverage for. However, they are a member of OPERA America, they have paid performers with the leads having impressive resumes, and the Tulsa Symphony Orchestra plays for their productions. All of those factors together made that company notable. In this case, I can't find anything to suggest that Union Avenue Opera meets any of the above criteria.Nrswanson (talk) 05:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Repeated coverage is a sign of notability. It doesn't matter if the subject were a hula troupe, so for me, there's no need to look into specific details of the attributes of opera companies to determine if this particular one is notable. -- Whpq (talk) 16:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But - unless I'm missing something - there isn't repeated coverage, only one instance. If you have other references can you tell us about them? --Klein zach 22:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Google News search turns up a lot of results from the StL P-D with coverage from as early as August 1996 to the present. That is 12 years of sustained coverage of the performances from this group. -- Whpq (talk) 12:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question: What exactly are the written rules for the notability of opera companies? Obviously, WP:NOTE is not much help. I can't see any relevance in WP:MUSIC either, especially after encountering this: the failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. WP:ORG doesn't say anything specific on this kind of organisation, but it obviously allows for non-commercial groups. Note: these three documents are guidelines, not policies.

As for media coverage required to be beyond local news: many opera companies don't get much media exposure on a national, much less on an international, level; e.g. coverage of Opera Australia's productions is mostly restricted to Sydney. I suspect this is true for all but a dozen or so of those appearing in Category:Opera companies.

In short: it seems to me there are no suitable policies/guidelines for the notability of opera companies. In the absence of those, nominating an article for deletion based on lacking notability seems unfounded. Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Actually there are several publications that cover a wide array of opera companies. Using your example of Opera Australia, here are two recent reviews from Opera News (you will need to get a free log in first to view): [15] and [16]. How about we go even more obscure with Berkshire Opera. Here is a review [17]. Or not too far from Saint Lewis with a Tulsa Opera review[[18]]. As you can see, just with this one magazine there is a wide array of coverage and this is not the only opera magazine and journal that has such wide coverage. I wouldn't necessarily use this as the only factor in determining notability but with several factors involved here: 1. no outside media coverage 2. amateur chorus (and orchestra?) 3. non-notable singers 4. performs in a church 5. started by a local church 6. Not a member of OPERA America All of them together add up to not notable in my opinion.Nrswanson (talk) 04:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete After sitting through this discussion and reading everything that has emerged about this company, I think it's clear now that they are non-notable. Much of Michael Bednarek's analysis above is correct, however his last point ("it seems to me there are no suitable policies/guidelines for the notability of opera companies. In the absence of those, nominating an article for deletion based on lacking notability seems unfounded.") draws the wrong conclusion. In the absence of precedents, it's our responsibility to make them. --Klein zach 00:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Opera:

Union Avenue Opera is a professional company and has been paying singers for over 10 years. While they are cosidered a "D" house in terms of budget and size, I can assure you that they are professional and their productions are generally quite good. The orchestra contains many people from the St. Louis Symphony. In recent years, they have been able to hire a few more notable singers, as their budget increases. The chorus is also paid....not the church choir, believe me! Singers are flown in and housed at donors homes- just like Opera Theatre of St. Louis. You could consider Union Avenue Opera to be the "New York City Opera" of St. Louis, with Opera Theatre of St. Louis being the "Met" of St. Louis. Hope this helps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.172.171.28 (talk) 21:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My comment to that is that it is not verifiably true and may be personal opinion and not fact.Nrswanson (talk) 05:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AGF Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AGF indeed, but is it a good practice to copy comments made elsewhere to this page? I think this is a bad precedent. --Klein zach 20:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Sigh; I really don't like meta² discussions; still:) To me, the contribution by 71.172.171.28 seemed relevant to this discussion here, and I assumed the anonymous editor might be unfamiliar with the intricate procedures of an AfD nomination and where to respond. I think collating all the relevant information is indeed good practice. What I consider bad practice is deleting parts of an AFD discussion; the strike-out feature is normally used to retract one's own statements, and contributions by others are allowed to stand (and fall) on their own merit, unless they are blatant vandalism.

Back to the merits of this AFD: the anonymous editor also provided a link to a 10 minute feature by KETC on this company, which I didn't paste here. I have now seen the video, and while the singing is not world-class, there is no doubt in my mind that this is a worthy organisation which adds to the culture of St. Louis in no small way. I have seen much more frugal productions than what was shown in the stage production excerpts in that video. I think we are needlessly setting the bar too high with this AFD — cui bono? As for dismissing items of only local significance or coverage: Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. — J. Wales (That editor's contributions include an article on an obscure South African butchery and I think that better represents Wikipedia's attitude to items of local significance than this AFD.) Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We need the facts - not a lot of vague circumstantial detail. State your case yourself. Please don't import material into this discussion to support your personal POV. If you approach the discussion in an intellectually honest, straightforward way, then other people will follow your example. --Klein zach 01:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite common to add or refer to information in talk pages when discussing an AFD when the material is relevant to the discussion. I don't see how the addition of the material from a talk page that points towards a a broadcast segment featuring the subject under AFD is out of line. -- Whpq (talk) 02:16, 25 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. It's either a no-consensus to delete, or a keep - either one results in the article remaining. Most of the initial deletes have been addressed/changed and while one remains, it appears as if evidence has been presented to address that. Remaining article issues can be addressed with clean-up, notability has been established. TravellingCari 15:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Cremo

Unnotable promoter of pseudoscience (creationism) and conspiracy theories. No assertation or demonstration of importance, lacks sources and has little value. We66er (talk) 21:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As nominator, I'd say this is borderline keep. The National Center for Science Education review demonstrates that, as far as fringe people go, he is notable. We66er (talk) 03:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per reasons stated above. Being a "challenger" of science isn't worthy of Wiki inclusion. Beemer69 ^chitchat 21:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Neutral ClovisPt (talk) 21:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete:~~ only citation is self-published. No evidence that this individual has garnered notice in creationism/conspiracy theory circles, let alone from "the world at large". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: article is currently written to obfuscate his notability, which appears to be as a Hindu creationist and cryptoarchaeologist. The article needs to emphasise this, and give WP:DUE weight to scientific criticism of his claims (e.g. here & here). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both of those reviews are already linked in the article. It's just a matter of incorporating what they say. Zagalejo^^^ 04:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and that's precisely my point -- giving voluminous mention of talk radio trivia & the topic's self-description, while relegating scathing scientific views & reviews to the ELs is gross WP:UNDUE. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Just remember that the article is a work in progress. I'm not submitting it to FAC or anything. I just started poking around with it this weekend. Zagalejo^^^ 06:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ keep Cremo is at least borderline notable. He's in Gale's Contemporary Authors, has been the subject of some newspaper articles [19], [20], and is discussed in some depth here. Also, his book Forbidden Archeology has been reviewed in The British Journal for the History of Science [21] and appears in at least 446 libraries, according to WorldCat [22]. He has some weird ideas, but he's fairly significant in his "field". Zagalejo^^^ 06:14, 14 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, Wizardman 18:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: what "field" would that be? His 'academic affiliation' (to the Bhaktivedanta Institute, itself an unknown quantity) is in the field of 'Consciousness studies', which seems to be unrelated to his claims. Also, none of the links you gave yield full-text of the material cited -- meaning we have no indication as to how much depth they cover Cremo in (per WP:NOTE). Therefore, they do not really add much to the discussion. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 19:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By "field", I was referring to "forbidden archeology" and all that. It's not a legit academic field, but it is an area of interest to creationists and the like. I don't know how long those articles are, but it's clear that Cremo is the subject of each of them, so I think we should err on the side of inclusion. In any case, he has an entry in Contemporary Authors and the Chambers Dictionary of the Unexplained, either of which should be enough to confer notability. Zagalejo^^^ 19:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"'forbidden archeology' and all that" is hardly a useful definition of a "field". Cryptoarchaeology or pseudoarchaeology might be -- but I don't see any mention of him in either of those articles. His views are only of interest to Hindu creationists, not creationists generally. Given all information to date seems to be centred on discussion/criticism of his claims, rather than biographical information on the man himself, I would suggest expansion of the above wikilinked articles to cover his ideas (with WP:DUE weight to the criticism they have received) rather than attempting a biography that would simply be a WP:COATRACK for these claims. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I put "field" in scare quotes for a reason. Don't fixate on it. There is some more biographical information at Contemporary Authors I could throw in. Zagalejo^^^ 05:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not everything in Wikipedia has to meet strict academic guidelines. What a boring encyclopedia it would be were that true!--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment regarding Hrafn's suggestion regarding "expansion of the above wikilinked articles to cover his ideas". The views of Cremo and ISKCON (who publishes his books) are already given Undue Weight at Hindu views on evolution, since both hold views that are only held by an extreme minority of Hindus. ~ priyanath ^talk 22:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not appear to meet WP:BIO. Stifle (talk) 15:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What's wrong with the sources in the article? Zagalejo^^^ 18:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  I don't have an issue with the sources. I still can't see him meeting WP:BIO. Perhaps you can indicate which entry there he meets. Stifle (talk) 19:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  Well, I just think he passes the general Notability criteria (subject of multiple, independent sources). He has a balanced, multi-paragraph entry in this book and an entry in Contemporary Authors. His books have been reviewed in many places [23], [24], [25], [26], and he's been the subject of several newspaper articles [27], [28]. He's also discussed, in varying length, in these two sources: [29], [30]. Zagalejo^^^ 19:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sure, a lot of people disagree with the theories put forth, but they are notable theories. The sources are not exactly "widely known", but I'm okay with that on this particular "specialist" topic.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article makes specific claims of notability, backed by required sources needed to satisfy the Wikipedia:Notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 19:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Zagalejo and Paul McDonald. Banjeboi 00:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Zagalejo and Paul McDonald et al. Notable pseudoscientist as shown by many refs above and in article.John Z (talk) 02:41, 21 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) 18:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Yurgelis

Prod previously removed, still no evidence of passing WP:BIO, no coverage by independent sources supplied in article or found by searching. Appears to be one of series of related articles on non-notable subjects introduced by this user see, User talk:Cweecwee13 - Hunting dog (talk) 18:12, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't meet WP:BIO criteria; lacks citations of reliable sources. Possibly a "conflict of interest" article.--T B C ♣§♠ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 18:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I tagged this as a speedy, then changed my mind because of the tenuous notability of "highly publicized journey" and made it a prod tag. There is, however, no evidence to corroborate any of these statements and the article has not been improved since the prod tag was removed, it seems. There is no verifiability here. Accounting4Taste:talk 20:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:53, 20 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 Where were all those sources when I went looking for them? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Winchester

Reads like a fansite, makes a few claims, but overall he seems to fail WP:V. A search for his name and various keywords turned up no reliable sources besides this and a couple interviews, which I don't think are enough. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:12, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets several WP:MUSIC criteria: (1) Subject of multiple non-trivial published works (for example, see [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38]). (2) Has had a charted hit ("Say What", #32 on Billboard, May 30, 1981). (5) Two or more albums on a major label. I suspect he also meets two or three additional criteria, but these should be enough. BRMo (talk) 01:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets notability with multiple reliable sources per BRMo -- Whpq (talk) 16:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - covered by several notable artists, scarcity of other information —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.107.0.73 (talk) 17:21, 20 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 (non-admin close) Beeblbrox (talk) 19:45, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Republic of Tonalia

Micronation. MADEUP. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 17:37, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Utter nonsense. PC78 (talk) 18:27, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy now tagged. Totally made up, they even put in a "references" section with "N/A" as it's content. That's a clue. Beeblbrox (talk) 19:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Small as a toenail. "Tonalia". Ha ha. Mandsford (talk) 00:17, 18 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 from the rewrite plus the withdrawal and few strong delete reasons means this one is a keep. —[DeadEyeArrow – Talk – Contribs] 18:23, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Terren Peizer

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:

Seems he is only notable "well known" for one event. NonvocalScream (talk) 17:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per the rewrite I withdraw this nomination. NonvocalScream (talk) 22:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 163 gnews hits, 13 gbooks hits, War of the Milkenites: Terren Peizer finds out that some people never forget in Forbes 1999 (hmmmm), CEO and majority owner of a famous company like Cray, and other companies with substantial coverage, plus all of the many refs in the article (some may have been inadvertently and inappropriately pruned while dealing with the antics of the obsessed SPA there.) That someone with far too much time on his hands has decided to create an army of sockpuppets and IPs and attack an article should in no way cause the deletion he desires. (See the previous AfD, where he nominated it twice simultaneously, the other AfD has been deleted.) If needs be, ignore him, let's get a reasonably good version, and protect it for 6 months if necessary.John Z (talk) 20:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not that famous, he's a CEO of a very small company, and was one witness out of a parade of them who testified against one guy over two decades ago. The Cray thing is dated as well. Not sure why some people are so focused on attacking this guy, but I don't think he's notable enough or that it's worth the trouble to keep this article up.75.82.59.206 (talk) 12:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only mentionings about him on the internet are the exact same repeated press releases by his company, the same resume on him submitted by his company, as well as the same bad press he received for his company from 60 minutes, and the same bad press he received for being one of thousands of workers who got canned from the company he used to work for. It's all repeats of the same small stories. Quite frankly, he is one of millions of people who own companies (others own larger ones and aren't here on Wikipedia) but he was unfortunate enough to be a small witness in one or two legal battles. Other than that, he seems to be a very private, non-famous, virtually unknown (or not wanting to be known) person and should remain respectfully as such. He's probably cringing enough already over the bad press about his company being questioned and losing money as it is, so perhaps we should just leave him alone on Wikipedia and delete the entire article. Poor guy...I'm beginning to feel sorry for him... 71.167.250.126 (talk) 15:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Delete. He's so unimportant, it's ridiculous. He's not famous, his company is worthless, and his article is useless information. If you keep him up, it will only reveal harsh truths about him. If you take him down, it will only prove that he is totally not worth mentioning. Either way, he loses. Go on and put him out of his misery. 66.108.145.222 (talk) 09:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 13:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. — John Z (talk) 13:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~weak keep~~ Not notable for only one event since there has been follow-up coverage and other issues. I'm really not sure about this because the one primary event was something that was highly notable. He was a very prominent witness for a major case. On the other hand, most of the publicity and focus has been due to that. Countering that, some of the coverage related to his business work in later years seems completely independent of that arguing against ONEEVENT claims. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC) Now at full keep given the analysis of the similarly named editor below. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For AfD purposes, one should take a look at this version, which is basically the article up to a few weeks ago. There's puffery and fat there, but some refs, which appear to be specifically about him, like the extensively quoted article in Financial World by Stephen Taub that calls him "one of Wall Street’s top players,” have been removed. The SPA, who clearly knows better, likes to insist that only online references are acceptable, and successfully eliminated it.John Z (talk) 21:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article, while it could use improvement he appears to have had an extensive business career, enough so that I'm forced to guess at which "one event" is meant. If it's the Milken scandal, arguably his career since is actually more significant than his bit part there. --Michael Snow (talk) 23:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've made a significant rewrite to the article that hopefully addresses some of the issues. I'll try to do more later. --Michael Snow (talk) 05:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I vote for DELETE, for many of the same reasons posted above. Also, I went and looked back at the original entry for him, as well as a few vandalisms. It is obvious that whoever originally listed him did it with the intent to slander, and without NPOV. It is also obvious that whoever is slamming this guy is not going to give up editing the page to include rumor, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.75.12.98 (talk) 23:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK I checked, and I'm referring to the vandalism in Oct 11, 2007 - I wont reprint the vandalism here but it is obvious that there are enough folks out there who want to create mischief. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.75.12.98 (talk) 23:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteI also vote to delete this page for the reasons stated above. For those seeking information, there is plenty available on the internet, but I do not believe that he needs a Wiki page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.231.252.157 (talk) 23:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ...why does this guy even have a Wiki page? Plenty of people have testified in public trials who aren't listed on Wikipedia. And he is listed in the same category as Trump, etc.? Silly. It sounds like someone is still mad at him and pursuing some kind of immature vendetta. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.75.12.98 (talk) 00:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE! Vendetta? I do not even know him and would not even care to. He is such a nobody it is ridiculous. Delete, delete, etc. 66.108.7.182 (talk) 22:45, 22 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. bibliomaniac 1 5 02:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quick Stop Entertainment

No sufficient third-party sources, the site's only claim to fame is that it is owned by Kevin Smith and hosts his podcast SModcast. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 16:48, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete- In addition to what Cabinfeveraaron said below, I know far more people who have heard of Kevin Smith or Paul Dini then who have heard of a number of bands that have Wiki pages. Just because QuickStop Entertainment's media is made for the internet that makes it less deserving of a page then some local emo band with 10 fans? If Wiki wants to get taken seriously it needs to put petty stuff like this aside and embrace all submissions as long as the content is of value to someone, anyone, who may want to read it. --Dseabolt (talk) 04:23, 23 August 2008 (UTC) — Dseabolt (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

You're absolutely right. A TON of people have heard of Kevin Smith and Paul Dini. That's why they have their own pages. Unfortunately, notability is not inherited. Just because the site has notable contributors does not mean the site itself is notable, unless someone can provide enough sources to prove otherwise, which so far does not seem to be likely. I've been looking, as have many other editors, but we still haven't found anything useful. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 07:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The site also hosts podcasts from lesser known people, as well as reviews on a whole spectrum of products. Its also where Kevin Smith debuted the trailer for his new movie. I'd say its at least as relevant as Ain't It Cool News, which has its own page. Is there a storage restraint on Wiki? I don't see how using a couple of megs for a QSE page is any more of a waste then a good 10% of whats currently on Wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dseabolt (talk • contribs) 07:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said many times before, it does not have reliable sources. If an article does not have reliable sources, it's inclusion cannot be justified. Articles like Kevin Smith, Paul Dini and SModcast all have articles because there are sources that can be used to verify the subject's notability. With this article however, that isn't the case. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 07:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly determines notability? Heres a link to an interview QSE did with Steve Coogan whose film Hamlet 2 was a success at Cannes and debuts this weekend. Does this count? http://www.quickstopentertainment.com/2008/08/22/trailer-park-steve-coogan/ Its pretty much the same kind of stuff AICN runs, and like I pointed out, they are included.--Dseabolt (talk) 07:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to know what determines notability read Wikipedia's guidelines, you can specifically look here. --H E L LØ ŦH E R E 08:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In a world where AICN gets a page and QSE doesn't there is no logic, so I'm just gonna leave now. I've heard the outside world can be fun.--Dseabolt (talk) 10:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete- No, it's claim to fame is that it's contributors include Kevin Smith, Scott Mosier, Dana Snyder, Paul Dini, Christopher Stipp and Peter Sanderson all of whom are notable enough to have their own wikipedia pages. Please stop asking to delete pages that you have a personal vendeta against. This is a young page, it needs time to have its content filled. The whole point of an online dictionary is to be able to cross reference information. This page is relevent to 7 other different wikipedia articles therefore making it of note. --Cabinfeveraaron (talk) 17:20, 17 August 2008 (UTC) — Cabinfeveraaron (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete- I'm one of the members of the view Askew/Kevin Smith Wikiproject and even I believe this page should be deleted. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, it's an encyclopedia, and this doesn't seem notable enough for an encyclopedia. Especially if people would like to see what "Quick Stop Entertainment" is, they can view the website. If you'd like to possibly create this page in the future once you have non-Kevin Smith related references, make it a subpage or sandbox and work on it. But I agree that this article should be deleted. --H E L LØ ŦH E R E 17:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Of course it's not a dictionary. We're are not listing the meaning of words. Have you not heard of Paul Dini? Dana Snyder? Christopher Stipp? Kevin Smith is not the only contributor. Please could you read the article in future.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Cabinfeveraaron (talk • contribs) 17:37, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- "The whole point of an online dictionary is..." These are your exact words. Which is why I said that. And I didn't say it was only Kevin Smith. I just don't agree that this should be an article because I don't believe it is notable. --H E L LØ ŦH E R E 17:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- It also seems by the content listed in the article and your username that you have a biased towards this article and its contents. (What I mean by this is the "Cabin Fever" and "Cabin Fever Aaron".) --H E L LØ ŦH E R E 17:48, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not saying I am notable, I am not looking for a page for myself. I am saying that this website is mentioned on 7 other pages for individuals who are considered notable. These notable people are contributors to the site so I believe it is a notable article. I can edit my name out of the page if it makes you feel comfortable. It doesnt change the status of the website.--Cabinfeveraaron (talk) 17:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Cabinfeveraaron , I'd appreciate it if you would stop accusing me of nominating articles because of some nonexistent "vendetta". I am a huge fan of both Kevin Smith and SModcast, but that has to stay separate of my editing on Wikipedia. The article does not cite any reliable third-party sources, and the site itself does not meet WP:WEB. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 18:54, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Is Kevin Smith (the nom spelled it wrong) notable? Yes he is. Is this? unsure (remember, notability is not inherited), but i'd love to see some reliable sources of its mention somewhere else that isn't connected to Smith (newspapers, other websites etc.)) Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 19:10, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is this article in the Austin Chronicle proof enough?

http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Issue/story?oid=oid%3A388487 --192.156.110.33 (talk) 10:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That could possibly be used as one source, and it seems third party, but one reference cannot build an article. --H E L LØ ŦH E R E 10:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As mentioned previously, this article is barely a week old. These references can be found. It just requires time.--192.156.110.33 (talk) 10:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Another third party reference has been added to account Quick Stops history with the MPAA http://www.filmjunk.com/2008/06/06/kevin-smiths-zack-and-miri-teaser-pisses-off-the-mpaa/ --192.156.110.34 (talk) 10:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Attempt I have made an attempt to clean up the page. It still isn't great, but it looks somewhat passable now. --H E L LØ ŦH E R E 11:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looking at the sources provided, I still don't feel like they're enough to justify the article. The Austin Chronicle only mentions the site, and the article itself is about Clerks II. The "Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back" site doesn't mention the site aside from linking to it, the IDW page doesn't mention it at all, the People.com story is about Matt Damon, it doesn't even BEGIN to mention Kevin Smith, let alone QSE, and the firstshowing.net link is talking about the trailer for Zack and Miri Make a Porno. It only mentions that it was hosted on QSE before it was taken down. The sources are trivial, and I've done some searching to try to find sources to help the article along, but I haven't found any substantial coverage yet. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 14:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply The only reason I added the People link was to have a reference that Sarah Silverman did the original video. And I do agree, I had just thought I'd try to help give the page a fighting chance. --H E L LØ ŦH E R E 02:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is a third party source which talks about the Quick Stop panel at Comic Con. It mentions its popularity among other things in the article. I would assume this would be a good reference to add. It came up on the first page in a google search. http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=16160 --Cabinfeveraaron (talk) 15:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You claim that the IDW page did not mention the site or Ryalls involvement http://www.idwpublishing.com/bios2.shtml I'll ammend the link in the article for those who are unable to find it from the main page. This page from Variety also mentions Ryall and Smiths involvement with the site. http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117869172.html?categoryid=1019&cs=1&query=%22chris+ryall%22 This too will be added.--Cabinfeveraaron (talk) 17:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correct me if I am wrong (which I know some one will because some people have nothing better to do than correct Wikipedia) but the purpose of an encyclopedia is to be a repository of information. Wikipedia even more so because it is online and thus open to a wider amount of content. To delete any information seems wrong. In fact I seem to recall another group of individuals who tried to keep information they did not deem important from the public. They were called Nazis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patchbohan (talk • contribs) 19:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC) — Patchbohan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I'm not sure that I see the Nazi parallel, but that's fine. Actually, one of Wikipedia's policies is that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Subjects must be proven to be notable as per Wikipedia's guidelines for notability. If a subject does not meet those criteria, then it is not notable enough to stay. If we were to subscribe to your school of thought. Wikipedia would be awash with useless articles. There has to be some system of checks and balances. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 19:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm calling you a Nazi Rwiggum because you seem to think it is your job to delete content YOU don't feel is notable. I agree there should be a system of checks and balances but you deleted a page before it was even up for a day. That's not checks and balances, that's just being a douche without too much time on his page. A lot more people care about Ken Plume, Snydecast, Smodcast and QuickstopEntertainment than all those stupid emo bands you make pages for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patchbohan (talk • contribs) 05:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How are personal attacks going to help your cause? It is not just Rwiggum, I have personally edited this page and I don't feel it is notable. And your use of Clerks quotes about Nazi's won't help your argument. --H E L LØ ŦH E R E 08:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I appreciate your sentiments Patchbohan could you please at least keep this civil. I feel the only way to win an argument like this is to edit the page and improve it's chances. While I agree that this page shouldn't be deleted this is the only way to make sure it isnt. The likes of Cabinfeveraaron have done so, please try to imitate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.156.110.33 (talk) 17:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I very much agree, which is why I also tried to improve the page, and if others feel it should be kept, they should edit it to improve its chances. If not, I'm fairly sure it will be deleted, as it still needs a lot of work. --H E L LØ ŦH E R E 18:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When does something like this get decided? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.156.110.33 (talk) 18:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI I have recently created a personal sandbox located here, incase this article is deleted and it would like to be worked on. --H E L LØ ŦH E R E 18:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can we please close this debate now, I would like to think that enough 3rd party references in such a short period of time can end this debate when website pages like this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NeoGAF which have 1 reference is free from trouble. I will continue to edit this page in hopes to appease any problems and alter it as other editors feel it needs to be. I have no problem with people questioning it's content and telling me what it needs but I think it's gone past the worry of deletion.--Cabinfeveraaron (talk) 15:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's the problem, though. There aren't enough sources ABOUT the site, or at least with substantial coverage. Most of the sources give only passing mentions to the site, and some aren't at all related to the site, and are only there to bulk up the references section. And regarding NeoGAF, just because other stuff exists does not give this page a free pass. I agree, it needs sources. The site has been deleted before and nominated twice. However, The difference between NeoGAF and QSE is that NeoGAF has substantial coverage, Including a number of stories they've broken. Plus, there's this. I'd say that last one alone could prove notability for the entire article, it's just a matter of adding them (which I am going to do now). So far, it doesn't look like QSE has anywhere near that level of coverage. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 16:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, you see this is what confuses me. I removed any references that didn't at the very least mention the site (although one of them was put back by someone else). So while it can be debated that the articles don't mention the site enough (and thats a matter of argument) the part that you mentioned about the site not breaking enough news itself... media sites rarely do that. The site has high profile interviews (which you can see by just going to the site), 3 podcasts with high listenerships (one you even claim to be a fan of yourself) and contributors which the majority of whom are of note enough to get their own wiki article. I would have thought that these all contribute to a good case for notability. While it may not be a highly reported about site, its a well known one. So if the big problem is the references why not just leave the message at the top of the article that the references need to be improved rather than nomination for deletion?--Cabinfeveraaron (talk) 12:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is someone who is known to have a total sense of disgust for this subject matter being kept on Wikipedia, and I think that his animosity toward it should be considered in this deletion query. DodgerOfZion (talk) 21:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you elaborate please? I have no problem with articles like this going up on wikipedia, and in fact have been searching for sources in order for this article to stay. I think Quick Stop Entertainment is a great site, but I have to keep that separate from Wikipedia. There just aren't the sources to justify it's inclusion according to WP:WEB. I'd appreciate it if you didn't accuse me of bad faith nominations. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 21:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Pettiness in the web? Who could imagine? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.92.214.73 (talk) 19:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep - passes WP:N --T-rex 20:56, 24 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 and Redirect to 2008 South Ossetia War#Cyberattacks and censorship. GlassCobra 17:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Kokoeva

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}}.

Subject is a juvenile that was interviewed once. This is simply not notable enough for an article, and beyond that, appears to be POV pushing. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 15:42, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete. The YouTube video has more than eight hundred thousand views. - jehobu 8/17/2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jehobu (talk • contribs) 17:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC) — Jehobu (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Strong delete & liberal sprinking of salt per nom. Looks like a case of WP:BLP1E and a WP:COATRACK for some overt POV pushing. nancy ^talk 17:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Completely agree on WP:BLP1E and WP:COATRACK. However I think the article should be renamed rather than deleted. This incident is significant enough to be described in Wikipedia. And, of course, the article should be cleaned from that strong POV bias it contains right now. --Mgar (talk) 09:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My !vote stands but I agree that after deletion the article should be recreated as a fully-protected redirect to 2008_South_Ossetia_War#Cyberattacks_and_censorship per PeaceNT below. nancy ^(talk) 05:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete. This article covers a significant view of some US officials on Ossetia 2008 war. Again, the journalist was speculating on the fact that Georgian troops initially started the war. Google now shows 'Amanda Kokoeva' results, but don't forget how much time has been passed since. Again, there is a link on that article on 2008 Ossetia page - i feel that all sides of the conflict should be covered equally Sorcen (talk) 17:21, 17 August 2008 (UTC) — Sorcen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Strong delete This is an editorial masquerading as a biographical article without any actual biographical details. Any relevant information (though I'm unclear if there is any) can be merged into 2008 South Ossetia War. A ni Mate 18:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a reference - if appropriate - into 2008 South Ossetia War. A line max will do. This article is supposed to be about Amanda Kokoeva, not an excuse to air the speculations of US officials and a journalist. The child's only notable action has been to give her opinion about the war on one brief TV interview. The number of people who visit a website later to see a repeat of this interview is utterly irrelevant. Ka renjc 21:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This person is not notable at all. Tavix (talk) 21:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails notability and there's also a strong smell of POV. andy (talk) 22:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:COATRACK and WP:BLP1E. This is a POV article. As an aside, someone removed the AfD from the article; I've restored it. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 23:48, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Rename possibly. The censorship and extreme anti-Russian bias in such a public way is notable IMO. --Tocino 00:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong delete It's libel in the U.S. The article does not reflect the Video.Jason3777 (talk) 00:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. But we should change the article, not delete it, because event itself has some significancy. Russian foreign office widely uses this case as a propaganda, Wikipedia should describe what really happened. --Mgar (talk) 09:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with you, but I can't find any NPOV sources. All we have are the video and totally inaccurate POV statements about it. Anyone who understands English and watches the video should plainly see that the text doesn't agree. Without sources, one cannot write an article per WP:OR. How does one explain U.S. commercial breaks where all the news organizations break at the same time to keep their audience from channel skipping? It's standard operating procedure here. I've watched Studio B for years and I never remember seeing them bring someone back to finish their comments (and they did it in the last 30 seconds of the show). And this preempted the program's normal sign-off segment - an unprecedented event in my years of viewing the program. But I can find no sources that say this. How can one combat propaganda with what is simply Common Knowledge in the U.S.? Jason3777 (talk) 21:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found one source released today: http://pulitzercenter.typepad.com/untold_stories/2008/08/amandas-video-o.html, although it sounds more like an editorial then a news article. Jason3777 (talk) 22:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That site wouldn't be useful as a source, since it is simply a blog, even if for the Pulitzer Center. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 22:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete This person is not notable per WP:ONEEVENT. Changed my reasoning because my stated objections have been corrected. Jason3777 (talk) 18:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge due to write up of NYT article posted by Fomels. It should be put with Russian press media bias/"control" Where it is already addressed in the main article 2008_South_Ossetia_war.Jason3777 (talk) 20:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete: I have added a link to another interview given by the girl, Amanda, on ABC news, and she and her aunt give the same account as the article reflects. There is also a video with the ABC news link of that interview. I also echo the sentiments of the person who stated the censorship in such a public way is very notable, and frankly a bit disturbing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MiaCulpa (talk • contribs) 04:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC) — MiaCulpa (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Strong Delete and Salt Clear attempt to engage in propaganda. Subject would not merit an article (see WP:BLP1E). Salt as well, due to repeated recreation following previous deletions. RayAYang (talk) 05:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into 2008 South Ossetia War I was looking for information on this person, right now she will be world famous in the next few days because of how fox news handled her interview and how they cut her off after her opinion was not what they wanted to hear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcintomasz (talk • contribs) 05:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete! To delete this article means destroy the last isle of truth. Europeans & Americans are proud of freedom of speech, but its noncence that what they speak on FOX, CNN, BBC etc is damn FAR from truth about conflict. I have my grandpa in Tskhinvali and he was telling me how everything started from Gergian side - firs GRADs, then tanks and troops. There is no more my native town, there is no more many of my friends. We should make a seperate article on S.Osetia-Goergia conflict and use this material as the proof. Until that we haven't any moral rights to delete the article. 3bigs (talk) 06:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC) — 3bigs (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete per above. There's enough about her on the main page of the war. This page can always be recreated if she _does_ become a sensation, but remember that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball so we can't assume any future notability. Themfromspace (talk) 08:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The incident is significant enough. The article is not about person but about the case that became quite famous. Maybe it should be reflected in the name. Of course, the article currently contains very strong POV, and that should be cleaned. --Mgar (talk) 09:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This does not seem to indicate that this is a case that has become "quite famous". Further, I'd challenge editors to find sources that aren't anti-Fox News, anti-Bush administration, etc, since pushing such POVs makes them unfit as sources here (can't build an NPOV article with POV sources). Really, the only thing that makes this famous is that some have chosen to ignore certain technical aspects of television news and are holding this up as an example of impropriety in the media. Actually, that's a pretty common charge amongst any number of groups...nothing special here. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 14:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Completely agree with you about POV and need to find neutral sources. However I am for cleaning the article, not deleting it. About famous - please see Google search in Russian. It became quite an issue there. And while I agree with you what made it famous, the point is if it's famous, not why it's famous. --Mgar (talk) 15:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. Even if it's notable, which I very much doubt, the article is pure propaganda. Not everything that is "famous" can be published, and a lot of famous stories are untrue. I completely agree with Huntster, and further to my earlier !vote I now think the article should be salted. WP is not the place for the Russians and Georgians to bring their fight. andy (talk) 17:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, the article is not propaganda. The current contain of the article is propaganda, and that must be changed. The deletion decision is about notability of an event, not about current POV state of an article. That is my point. --Mgar (talk) 17:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's FoxNews. They cut off people who disagree with them all the time. Bill O'Reilly is famous for it. This onscreen event isn't notable. A ni Mate 20:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Almost a million people saw this on YouTube, so you can't just shrug it off, and it does bring up some interesting points about news coverage in this country. Fix refs, npov, style -- sure; rewrite, rename -- probably; delete -- no. Guinness man (talk) 10:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As has been stated before, YouTube hits are pretty much meaningless...heck, even the article says the viewer numbers seem to have been fiddled with. The problem with the article is not just that it is POV, but that given what sources seem to be available to work with, it appears the article is irredeemably POV, with little to no chance that it can be pulled out of its current state. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 14:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This cannot be ignored, it shows the complete disregard to equality in the American media and it helps show the 'other' side that is hidden from the American viewers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Solonmonkey (talk • contribs) 17:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC) — Solonmonkey (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Please, do not delete!.This article deals with freedom of speech. And if you delete it it will be clear that there's no freedom of speech left in the US. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.55.100.32 (talk) 18:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC) — 212.55.100.32 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENT.M0RD00R (talk) 20:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per User:Karenjc, but don't make it too big. Make it notable, however, in the Censorship in the United States article. KNewman (talk) 21:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You'd have to have something proving it was censorship for it to be in that article. Shepard Smith said the cut was due to a hard break and end of program, and right or wrong, to state in an article that it is otherwise is not only a POV, but original research. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 22:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete again, and for the same reason it was speedied: absolutely no credible evidence of notability by reference to non-trivial reliable independent sources. Guy (Help!) 16:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article is not notable in itself, though I would support the creation of an article concerning the various allegations of propoganda/distortion in the war (Georgian, Russian, Western Media). On her own she doesn't seem to merit an article by the current notability standards (also either the the youtube clip which says she is 12 or the birthdate in the article which gives her birthdate as 1994 are wrong). In general the article is poorly constructed, and if it is kept needs to be largely rewritten. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 10:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The incident is significant enough. --Fnaq (talk) 11:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC) — Fnaq (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Rename and Keep. This article is not about Amanda, but about the incident (per Mgar). The case is widely discussed by Russian mainstream media, video is showed on TV: [39] Channel One (Russia), [40] Vesti All-Russia State Television and Radio Company, [41] TV Center, [42] Voice of Russia, [43] RIA Novosti, [44][45] Interfax, [46] Echo of Moscow, [47] Izvestia, [48] Novaya Gazeta, [49][50][51] Komsomolskaya Pravda, [52][53] Newsru, [54] Rossiyskaya Gazeta, [55] Nezavisimaya Gazeta, [56] gazeta.ru. It's very notable incident. -- Esp rus2 (talk) 13:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.This incident is very important. Many peoples see this video, and many peoples may want to read about Amanda. --RussianNeuroMancer (talk) 16:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC) — RussianNeuroMancer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep and probably rename (to be an article about the incident, not about the girl). - Amikeco (talk) 21:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a whole new article. Unless someone does a rewrite very quickly, this afd is about the article as it stands, not what it might be/could have been/should be. andy (talk) 21:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.This article covers a significant view of some US officials on Ossetia 2008 war. Americans are proud of freedom of speech, but its noncence that what they speak on FOX, CNN, BBC etc is damn FAR from truth about conflict. This incident is very important for all. 87.224.253.99 (talk) 07:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC) av — 87.224.253.99 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

And so how does your opinion that the media bends the truth make this article any more notable? The incident may be notable, and we do have an article on it, but this particular incident is not. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 08:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's not that's she's notable for only one incident. As far as I can tell from the article, she's never done anything notable. If you're complaining Fox is biased, put it in the Fox article, using reliable sources. Superm401 - Talk 13:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. This article must be not about human (which one has no notability), but about incedent - currently it rised up in Russia - at least 4 different national channles shows it with comments. #!George Shuklin (talk) 13:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:COATRACK and WP:BLP1E. Wikipedia is not a forum for demonstrating the alleged bias of news broadcasts. This girl is not by any definition notable. Languagehat (talk) 15:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Let it remain as an evidence of the Russian media paranoia. Fomels (talk) 19:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and probably rename. Very important piece of media campaign during the war. It's huge in Russia - everybody talks about this one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mixer (talk • contribs) 00:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And therefore it probably deserves a brief mention in the entry on the incident. It certainly does not deserve its own article, any more than any other individual media response. Languagehat (talk) 14:59, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Most new articles are about persons, Is anyone mentioned in a newspaper deserves a page--PuTTY^SchOOL 19:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is better to re-write the article about "Georgia" --PuTTY^SchOOL 19:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:BLP1E and WP:COATRACK and major POV issues as this reads as a baseless attack on Fox News --T-rex 20:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A notable Internet phenomenon sparking a controversy on a very significant issue. The girl was later interviewed by a Russian TV station and attracted a lot media buzz in the country - can anyone translate the relevant information from the Russian version of the article (it is well sourced)? The Deceiver (talk) 20:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2008_South_Ossetia_War#Cyberattacks_and_censorship, where this event is already covered. Notable news, but doesn't make the person notable. BLP1E applies. If there's more information later, a separate article about the event can be recreated. This article is currently all about the event anyway, definitely not a biography. --PeaceNT (talk) 04:43, 25 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 Merged and redirected to List of extraterrestrials in Dragon Ball . I merged in the lead paragraph - anything more that is sourced and isn't just OR can be added. Black Kite 22:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Namekian

This article asserts zero notability through reliable sources, and is simply a repetition of the plot of various Dragon Ball articles plot sections in an in-universe way. It is therefore wholly duplicative, unnotable, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 15:27, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep & Clean Up It shows notability through the references it uses, in the same way as Son Goku. I don't see any plot repetition in the article (except in the History section, but that's to be expected [you can't have a Dragon Ball race article that makes no mention whatsoever about plot]). Little to none of the information in the article is duplicative. An in-universe tag should be placed, but deletion is overkill.--Koji Dude ^(C) 15:45, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article needs cleanup and reliable sources. Once that is done, then the article should be fine. RobJ1981 (talk) 15:53, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's great to hear, and I look foreword to seeing those references posted here so we can all know how notable this is. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I never said I would do it, I just gave advice to KojiDude. Personally, I'm not so sure if sources do exist. RobJ1981 (talk) 16:59, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Planet Namek is gone, so should this. JuJube (talk) 20:20, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Planet Namek article was some barely-linked to series of small paragraphs made by one guy a few weeks ago with no references and etc, on top of being a really minor part of the series in and of itself though. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 04:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cull and merge to List of extraterrestrials in Dragon Ball. Fails WP:N, WP:FICT, WP:PLOT, etc. No significant third party coverage of this species, all refs are purely from source material, with bits of WP:OR thrown in. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the species description and major attributes into List of extraterrestrials in Dragon Ball, the article's small enough to be put into a list without losing anything important. There probably should be some sort of more appropriate non-character list/article for this to be merged into though since "Namekian" is a aterm used to define a large group of characters and plot and not a specific person like the others on the current Extraterrestrials list. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 04:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of extraterrestrials in Dragon Ball. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Warhammer Fantasy (setting). PhilKnight (talk) 20:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Old World (Warhammer)

This article asserts zero notability through reliable sources, and is simply plot repetition culled from the Warhammer Fantasy articles plot section. It is therefore total duplication, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 15:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No notability shown. This looks like yet another Warhammer fancruft/clutter article. RobJ1981 (talk) 15:55, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lack of notability. Content could be merged with Warhammer Fantasy (setting) if it were properly cited. --Davémon (talk) 16:23, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Although I think the geography of Warhammer is an interesting subject in itself, I concede this is not enough to satisfy wikipedia's criteria. As per Davemon's suggestion, the important information should be included within Warhammer Fantasy (setting). Thefuguestate (talk) 19:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:55, 20 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 redirection to Human (Brandy album), which is where this content is covered. However, this is an unlikely and ungainly search term for that title, so the redirect was speedy deleted under criterion R3. —C.Fred (talk) 18:40, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Fifth Studio Album

Stop! HAMMER time! Sceptre ^(talk) 15:11, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Per HAMMER and CRYSTAL Lugnuts (talk) 15:52, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hit it with The Hammer. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 16:03, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Let's see...We have 1. An ambiguous title that doesn't even mention the artist, 2. No title, 3. No release date, 4. Wording that makes it look like a press release (or at leased copied from one) and 5. No reliable sources to its existence. Yup, crystal hammer all the way. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 16:12, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above: yet another failure of WP:MUSIC and thus WP:CRYSTAL. Cliff smith ^talk 17:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm checking the copyvio angle. Otherwise, I'm about to speedily delete this article, as a better one exists at Human (Brandy album). —C.Fred (talk) 18:35, 17 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. - Mailer Diablo 18:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lamb of God's fifth studio album

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Lamb of God's fifth studio album

Stop! HAMMER time! Sceptre ^(talk) 15:10, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No album title? no release date? not even recording yet? A case of crystal hammer wielding, is it not? Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 15:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Per HAMMER and CRYSTAL Lugnuts (talk) 15:52, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hit it with The Hammer. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 16:02, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, yet another failure of WP:MUSIC and thus WP:CRYSTAL: title, track list and release date are all yet to be confirmed by artist or label. Cliff smith ^talk 17:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I prodded this to see if the author could come up with anything worthwhile, but nothing's changed since my nom. And the original nomination above made me laugh, so that should be enough to delete it! Booglamay (talk) - 21:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lets double the damage by hitting it with a twenty pound hammer. Tavix (talk) 23:20, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:HAMMER, WP:MUSIC and WP:CRYSTAL Anonymous101 (talk) 13:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - It won't be released until 2009, so why have an article? I still think it should be remade sometime in the future though. --↑ɻ⅞θʉɭђɥл₮₴Ṝ 14:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yep yep... it can have a page later, but it's too soon right now. = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 14:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to Federally recognized tribes and List of Alaska Native tribal entities. No redirect is appropriate. Action completed. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 13:41, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Federally recognized tribes/Former Federal Register versions

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Federally recognized tribes/Former Federal Register versions

An indiscriminate collection of information, fails WP:DIRECTORY. Tavix (talk) 20:46, 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, Wizardman 15:02, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the references/external links section of Federally recognized tribes (and, if desired, cross-reference it from the corresponding section of List of Alaska Native tribal entities). This is just a list of the pages in the Federal Register where the list of Native American and Alaska Native tribes recognized by the U.S. government has appeared. The fact that such a list exists is notable, and the tribes on the list are notable, but the pages where the list appeared are not notable in themselves. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:03, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Metropolitan90's solution seems appropriate to me. Protonk (talk) 22:12, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, per above. Did it ever occur to the author to mention the Federal Register sections in the "sources" or "bibliography" in an article about federally recognized tribes.? The Federal Register is not copyrighted information, but a government publication paid for by tax dollars. No need to make it sound like a big secret that can only be learned by purchasing volume 73, number 66. Mandsford (talk) 01:52, 18 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 the parent article. Black Kite 22:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Intermezzo No. 1

Fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs Paul75 (talk) 14:57, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/smerge to the article on the album. Grutness...wha? 00:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:MUSIC, most singles don't need independent articles, and this one is no exception.Kww (talk) 16:10, 20 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 Redirected to parent article. Black Kite 23:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dum Dum Diddle

Seems to fail per WP:MUSIC#Songs Paul75 (talk) 14:54, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Arrival (ABBA album) as a plausible search term. Fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 16:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/smerge to the article on the album. Grutness...wha? 00:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:MUSIC, most singles don't need independent articles, and this one is no exception.Kww (talk) 16:05, 20 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 Redirected to album. Black Kite 22:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Piper (ABBA song)

Fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Album track only. Didn't chart, hasn't been covered by anyone notable. Should be redirected or merged into Super Trouper or ABBA article. Also includes OR Paul75 (talk) 14:48, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Delete rather than redirect as a non-plausible search term. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 15:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Redirect Well, if should be merged or redirected per nom, then what's it doing at AfD? No offense, but no discussion on the talk page, no obvious prod in the history, no notice given to any of the 3 authors who created/made corrections, no AfD notice to those three.... I think even though you're right that it deserves a merge, probably you should touch second base on this one before making it an AfD nom. LaughingVulcan 01:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per WP:MUSIC, most songs do not warrant individual articles. As for LaughingVulcan's comments, it's usually unproductive to contact the article creators for a stub ... they are usually emotionally attached, and it just creates an aggravating argument.Kww (talk) 16:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Super Trouper (album). I remember this as one of my favorite songs on that album, but it has never been released as a single and all the notability is therefore tied up to the album it is in. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:32, 21 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. - Mailer Diablo 18:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

W.I.T.C.H. The Movie (2010 film)

Unreferenced article on future film, fails WP:NFF and as far as I can tell WP:V as well. Could possibly be recreation of previously deleted article W.I.T.C.H. The Movie: The Ultimate War, deleted here Tassedethe (talk) 14:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Tassedethe (talk) 14:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability per WP:NFF. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 15:57, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — per WP:MOVIE, non-notable and no references. macy (talk) 16:16, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this totally unverified, unsourced speculation. Cliff smith ^talk 17:21, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Yup, violation of WP:CRYSTAL. No references and article is a total mess. --Meld shal 42? 17:22, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All I'm getting are blogs and forums that cite Wikipedia as a source. PC78 (talk) 17:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as is unsourced and speculative article about a "possible" film with nothing to prove any assertion. Fails WP:Crystal, WP:NFF, WP:V... as even the article itself states "The story has not bin written yet". Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:27, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet notability. Lady Galaxy 20:48, 17 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. Tan ǀ 39 20:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stoika Records

A very nonnotable musical record. 35 unique google hits cannot allow to verify its notability Dzied Bulbash (talk) 14:14, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails notability per WP:CORP. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 15:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --PuTTY^SchOOL 19:37, 24 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 close) RMHED (talk) 19:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shane Keister

In a search for this artist's name, I've found nothing but directory listings. He may be prolific, but for the most part he seems to fail WP:V. We know that he played on a bazillion albums, but that's all we know. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 14:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up. According to this article here, Shane Keister has been nominated for a Grammy, won three Dove Awards, won two Cleo awards, and won an Emmy. He has been a part of many Grammy nominated albums including Steven Curtis Chapman's Signs of Life and Five For Fighting's American Town. He has been a part of Grammy winning albums like Steven Curtis Chapman's Speechless and he co-worte songs for and played on the Grammy winning album Age to Age by Amy Grant. The article needs a lot of work, but he is certainly notable.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Antmusic (talk • contribs) 18:35, 17 August 2008

Keep - firstly, the article is in horrible shape. The huge block of name-dropping certinaly needs to go. However, a search of Google News would seem in to indicate that there might be some notability and tagging for references would be appropriate -- Whpq (talk) 16:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed that long list of musicians and replaced it with a cited note that he has worked with such people as Billy Joel and Elvis Presley. I also added a reference to one of his GMA Dove Awards. As Whpq noted, other references are available as well. It does appear that he has had enough third-party coverage to justify a keep. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd expect you would have to look long and hard for "written evidence" of some of the information included here and simply wouldn't find any. I went to high school with Shane, sang in the choir he accompanied under Phil Varney and played in one of the "competing" bands in the area, but it may be that it isn't much help unless someone writes it all down somewhere and publishes it. Some of the additions I made come from first-hand knowledge and appear to have been removed by individuals who probably were trying to "make the article fit standards", even though they may not know Shane at all or didn't know him during the period I did. Of course, this leads back to the issue of whether or not the information can be verified. I can do that, but I suspect it's not the kind of citation that might be necessary. I think it's clear that Shane deserves a place in musical history for the many things he has accomplished and I'd hate to see the article removed in light of all this. In sum: Clean up: yes; remove: no. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.108.15.59 (talk) 02:09, 21 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Westlife songwriters

Big, unmanageable list. It's a list of SONGWRITERS for every song ever put out by Westlife.No other act has a list like this; this infomation is already contained in the album and song pages, so this list is redundant. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 14:01, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pointless, unmanageable list. Information can easily be merged into individual album / single pages Paul75 (talk) 15:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Songwriters are important in every artist. This details just show a part of them being musicians and it is an act of gratitude to them, behind their hits. This list deserves to stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Myxxd (talk • contribs)
Delete per nom. This list is redundant (and poorly organized, as well). If Westlife is grateful to their songwriters, they can put this information on their own web site. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:10, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:58, 20 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. - Mailer Diablo 18:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Nicole Scherzinger Debut Album

Typical crystal article. Minimal sourcing, no title, no tracklist, no release date. Kww (talk) 13:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per The Hammer. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 15:55, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since this fails WP:MUSIC and thus WP:CRYSTAL: title, track list and release date must all be confirmed by artist or label. Cliff smith ^talk 17:20, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CRYSTAL. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 18:54, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnamed albums are non-notable 99% of the time, and this one is no exception. Tavix (talk) 19:33, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too unlegit to keep. JuJube (talk) 20:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable sources. Axl (talk) 06:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. STOP! tomasz. 11:25, 22 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. Tan ǀ 39 20:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Newswire (news music)

This article about a news music package does not give evidence of notability; in fact it doesn't even assert it. PROD was contested [57]; however I don't wish to comment on the rationale given. B. Wolterding (talk) 13:57, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The television news music packages are generally considered non notable. This specific one is rather minor involving a limited usage. I was involved in the prod and find that no improvements or rationale have been added to affect the original opinion of a non notable status. --Stormbay (talk) 15:33, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --PuTTY^SchOOL 19:38, 24 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 11:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Foster

Doug Foster fought in an engagement with 6 others where one of them John Hurst Edmondson gained a Victoria Cross. I doubt that this makes him sufficently notable for inclusion. Grahame (talk) 13:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 13:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 13:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doug's story is an interesting one, and it deserves to be recorded somewhere, but Wikipedia is not the place. Wikipedia welcomes biographical articles about people who are truly notable on the world-wide scene, befitting an entry in a world-wide encyclopedia. Biographical articles in Wikipedia must demonstrate that the subject meets the criteria specified at WP:BIO. This article does not demonstrate adequate notability. Dolphin51 (talk) 07:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the notability of this subject is that he is at least one of (if not the) last soldiers to die from injuries sustained during World War II combat.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree that Doug was injured in April 1941 in combat in WWII; and I agree that he died in August 2006. The two events were separated by 65 years. He died still carrying injuries sustained during WWII, but it is not reasonable to argue that he died from injuries sustained during WWII. The article states that he succumbed to other medical complaints. I understand there are many people still alive today who carry injuries, physical and mental, sustained during WWII. Dolphin51 (talk) 00:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... Perhaps you are right on that one--good point. I'd like to see how the rest of the positions pan out, but barring any change or additional information I'd agree with you on delete for this one then.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Paul's comment (above) says he was one of the last WWII soldiers to die of injuries. Problem is, the article itself doesn't say that. A mention in Hansard isn't in itself enough to gain entry into Wikipedia. Where did he live? Sydney I presume (article did not say)? Are there any other references available about him? Sydney Morning Herald? Daily Telegraph? ABC?--Lester 21:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A "normal, fun loving larikin" [sic] doesn't warrant a Wikipedia article. WWGB (talk) 02:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 05:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Premonitions of the Palladion Project

Delete. The book does not meet any of the criteria listed at Wikipedia:Notability (books). Appears to be a vanity article created by the author of the book. WWGB (talk) 13:29, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. A google search fails to turn up any reliable sources - most of the hits are book sellers. No google news, google blog search or google groups hits. No listing on Worldcat, either under the name or ISBN, which implies the book probably doesn't meet the threshold standard of being in a dozen libraries. Publisher seems to be Lulu.com, a self-publishing company. The book may be better considered under the academic book criteria, but there are no mentions from google books, or google scholar, that would support notability in the academic field. Silverfish (talk) 16:23, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:58, 20 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. (I shall assume Orange Mike's failure to close the AfD was just a momentray oversight.) — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 22:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Knox

Bio, probably autobio of an entrepreneur. No evidence of notability. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 12:49, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And a copyvio of this bio at the website he keeps trying to spam onto Wikipedia. I'm deleting it as a copyvio. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An autobiography, a copyvio and spam. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 21:44, 18 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. This is a very borderline one, and I think it's best to err on the side of Keep at the moment. I am going to do some more research on it with a view as to whether it should stay or perhaps be merged and redirected elsewhere. Black Kite 11:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thunder Express

Non-notable subject fails WP:BAND. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 12:19, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dont belive that this article should be deleted since it meets the "Criteria for musicians and ensembles" points 4, 5 and 6...

Roger Workman (talk) 12:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any references to back up your claims, because I've searched and can't find any. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 16:21, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

4 Has received non-trivial coverage in a reliable source of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country.

I might have spoke to soon on this one, Thuder Express have played alot of dates in sweden with many guest apperences from highprofiled bands in sweden. But not with major coverage from reliable sources, my bad...

5 Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable).

2 albums released on Razzia Record (major label).

6 Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable:

Robert Dahlqvist (vocals and guitar) is currently a member of the highly succesfull rockband The Hellacopters, the Copters have also decided to call it quits after their latest tour so Thunder Express will most likely be Roberts main project in the years to come.

So #4 might be out of the question (as of now) but 5 and 6 definatly counts...

Roger Workman (talk) 16:45, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. I agree with you for #4, the old reliable non-trivial bit has been hard to find. For #5, there are 2 things. Firstly they haven't released 2 albums on Razzia, only 1; Republic Disgrace. The other album, We Play for Pleasure was released on DeAf & Dumb Records, see Allmusic.com, and billboard.com. Secondly I'm seeing nothing to prove that Razzia is a major label; no wikipedia page, and not a lot on google apart from their official website.

As for #6, you forgot in your quote the next bit regarding side projects, which the article states this is. Your comment that this will most likely be his main project in the years to come, is without reliable sources, only your opinion and crystal balling.

Right now, I'm just not seeing enough to pass WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 17:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Roger Universal Cereal Bus ♫♪ 15:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Libs (talk) 13:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a Robert Dahlqvist article with info on his early career, The Hellacopters, Thunder Express, other guest apperneces and musical equipment would be the best solution? And simple use the Thunder Express page to redirect to that article? Roger Workman (talk) 18:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am failing to find any independent sources that show anything notable about this band --T-rex 20:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per criteria #6 of WP:BAND. Looks like it meets it. I acknowledge this is stated as being a "side project", but I feel a redirect to The Hellacopters would be awkward and some cleanup and sourcing of this article would be a better idea. WP:UCS and WP:IAR and all that jazz. Tan ǀ 39 20:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of evidence to verify if this is a major or minor project of the presumably notable band member. Probably meets WP:MUSIC #6, but that doesn't guarantee this band inclusion, as we have no reliable coverage to base on and write an article. --PeaceNT (talk) 04:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete non-notable. Fair Deal (talk) 12:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 2 albums make them notable enough for me. (Is there a definition for a major label that is not POV?) So has #5 and #6 of WP:BAND in its favour.Yobmod (talk) 10:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 05:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Vascellaro

Subject is not notable. Every single reporter for a major newspaper cannot be in Wikipedia. Omarcheeseboro (talk) 10:55, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think she meets the notability guidelines just yet. RMHED (talk) 19:46, 22 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, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Governale

Unsourced autobiography. Doesn't seem notable, for example a search for "Michael Governale" funtime for baby (the latter being the software that is his claim for fame) turns up squat. Not to be confused with the Arizona drive-by shooting victim of the same name. MER-C 10:33, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:BIO. Essentially a CV, and we are not a social networking site. --Dhartung | Talk 11:01, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note — The two very closely-related articles, Flopsy The Dog and Giggles Computer Funtime for Baby, have both been G11'd (blatant advertising/spam). MuZemike (talk) 16:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom.. - -[The Spooky One] | ^{[t c r]} 23:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTWEBHOST as well as not meeting the notability requirements per WP:BIO. MuZemike (talk) 17:26, 21 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. If a redirect is appropriate, re-create article as appropriate redirect. Tan ǀ 39 21:08, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of bus routes in the Thames Valley

This page effectively duplicates List of bus routes in Slough, and also suffers from there being no common definition of the 'Thames Valley' Grblundell (talk) 09:50, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as duplicate. A redirect might be useful if what Thames Valley includes is mentioned in the target article. --Polaron | Talk 15:33, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of bus routes in Slough. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 18:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DElete and the Slough article. Bus routes are liable to change at frequent intervals. The best solution is a short article on public transport in an area, with a link to an external website, that of the operator or Passenger Transport Authority, which will ensure that the website is manitained. That cannot be garanteed for a WP article. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete , and the Slough bus routes article with it. Wikipedia is not a directory. It doesn't need articles listing every bus route in the World, and there is nothing especially notable about this set of routes. There seem to be a great deal of bus route articles already, e.g. see Category:Bus routes in England here [58], so I guess that has set a precedent. But the existing list-type articles for England are by county (except for Slough which is a town), and "Thames Valley" doesn't fit into that scheme. It will overlap with the counties it contains - List of bus routes in Berkshire, List of bus routes in Oxfordshire etc. Jll (talk) 15:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of bus routes in Slough - this is not an endorsement of List of bus routes in Slough, but we certainly do not need two articles on this topic --T-rex 20:48, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List_of_Galaxy_Angel_characters; action to be taken by others. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 14:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nano-Nano Pudding

It seems to me that such a minor fictional character as Nano-Nano Pudding should not have it's own entry. The article itself is just not notable enough! I can understand a brief summary in the game Galaxy Angel, but having an article on the character is just going too far. Tbsdy lives (talk) 08:52, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 16:59, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is wholly unreferenced by means of reliable sources, consisting of plot synopses and original research. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 23:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Follow the suggestion of the pre-existing template and merge to List_of_Galaxy_Angel_characters, which is the consensus way to handle fictive elements of notable fictions that are not independently notable. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:51, 22 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 close) RMHED (talk) 18:41, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Andoh

Does not assert notability for this footballer. Punkmorten (talk) 08:17, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:ATHLETE as he plays at the highest level of football in Ghana. This is confirmed here. This article also confirms that he plays for Ghana's under-23 national team. 96T (talk) 14:41, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Who said the Ghanese league was fully professional? Punkmorten (talk) 20:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this person definitely meets WP:ATHLETE. Tavix (talk) 19:41, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; meets WP:ATHLETE as he plays at Ghana's highest level of football; it doesn't matter whether it's professional, as it's the highest amateur level. Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 21:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Amateur clause doesn't apply to professional sports like soccer, it applies to mainly amateur sports such as rowing and canoeing. Punkmorten (talk) 08:42, 23 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, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Subway Platform Birth in New York City

This event is described as a news. H2H (talk) 08:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, births happen outside hospitals quite frequently still. Not a notable event. Author probably wanted Wikinews, judging by the newsy writing style, but we can't transwiki there due to GFDL issues. --Dhartung | Talk 11:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Totally non-notable, at best WP:ONEEVENT. Babies are born every day, in the darnedest of places. WWGB (talk) 11:09, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Why? This doesn't warrant an entry. Citedcover (talk) 13:16, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is more like an essay than an article. I wouldn't be surprised if it was created by a person related to the event. Tavix (talk) 19:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ONEEVENT and WP:N. Leonard^(Bloom) 23:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:ONEEVENT, since this is an unremarkable one-off news event. --DAJF (talk) 12:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please kindly view author's response on the Talk Page of the the respective article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mail09876 (talk • contribs) 07:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC) It is the same as follows: Hello all; thank you for reviewing this page. Perhaps this article needs to be re-written for peer consideration, rather than deleted. It seems that in the attempt to document some key elements of the story, the uniqueness of the situation and reasons why I thought it should be included in Wikipedia were lost.[reply]

Although babies are not very rarely born outside hospitals, they seldom occur within a major metropolitan train station, with hundreds of individuals walking by. This increases its need for notablity due to it being an extremely rare category of a (2) lives endangering event inside a New York City Train Station, utilized by millions of people each year. Perhaps evidence of this are contained within the references, reflecting that the story was covered in full broadcast stories with valuable minutes of time, rather than as a mention at the conclusion of the broadcast, for example. Within the extreme multitude of out of hospital births, local hero situations, accidents, and others situations, it stood out within the New York community (and eventually internationally) as an event by sheer nature of its occurrence as it took place, to be given attention.

Individuals, for example, researching notable events within this or other transit system; and/or elements of bystander reaction, would be able to access the detail. In additon, while it was a particula event, and involved individuals who would, perhaps, not otherwise be on Wikipedia, its ramifications were also of note. These include the above elements, as well as the occurrence of a birth in a particularly dirty, overpopulated area.

This event was a bellweather to all of reactions of New Yorkers to a situation requiring unique types of help. The case of "Kitty Genovese" for example, is still discussed periodically in New York news, though it occurred more than thirty years ago, as a measure of how New Yorkers and other can or should respond in case of emergencies. The theme of individuals "pitching in," even though hundreds of bystanders were present was of note to the media and public, and, I believe, would be of interest to those seeking information on such events, or any of the themes contained therein.

In conclusion, though written in a journalistic rather than documentary format, as was pointed out, I respectfully suggest that it is noteworthy because although an "out of hospital birth" may in and of itself be newsworthy but not encyclopedia worthy, this particular occurence was unique in that it was a historical occurence of particular interest even to those in a city with many thousands of unusual occurences. In the event that it needs to be revised to reflect these qualities, I would request the opportunity to to do so for resubmission.Mail09876 (talk) 08:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:01, 20 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. Nothing sourced to merge into proposed articles where a mention of the project based on the sourced referenced here (but not in the article itself) would be appropriate. Eluchil404 (talk) 11:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sherlock Holmes (2010 film)

Apparently fails future film notability guidelines. No prejudice towards recreation when shooting can be reliably sourced to have already begun. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 07:59, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails notability per WP:NFF. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 11:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails film notability guidelines; the movie must be in production in order for it to merit an article.--T B C ♣§♠ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 12:50, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFF; doesn't even have a confirmed title yet. Cliff smith ^talk 17:17, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Film appears to have been announced, but nothing more. Fails WP:NFF. PC78 (talk) 18:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 18:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep or merge informations to Sacha Baron Cohen, Will Ferrell, and/or Etan Cohen. Although the brief article cites only one source... a blog, I found plenty at Variety, New York Daily News, Cinematical, Always Watching, SlashFilm, and FirstShowing, among others. Seems notable enough to consider having the information on Wiki. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep – The sources cited by User:MichaelQSchmidt establish WP:GNG notability at least for the casting of this film. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)}

As per WP:N, the issue is not the notability of the content, but the notability of a separate article. Hence WP:NFF. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:29, 23 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, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Date Night

Apparently fails future film notability guidelines. No prejudice towards recreation when shooting can be reliably sourced to have already begun. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 07:49, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails film notability guidelines; the movie must be in production in order for it to merit an article.--T B C ♣§♠ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 12:49, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice per WP:NFF. Cliff smith ^talk 17:18, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFF. PC78 (talk) 18:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 18:38, 17 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, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Blanchard

No sources other than the author's webpage. Claims to be a writer of evangelical religion, has a dubious degree, and makes claims of importance, but not proven. There seems to be many people with the John Blanchard's in the press. This article has been on wikipedia and if here's notable, I would have thought someone would have added one source in two years.

Note this is not John Blanchard (politician) or John Blanchard the movie director of The Last Polka.[59] If this is deleted, one of these more notable Johns should replace it.We66er (talk) 07:33, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:COPYVIO. See [60]. It appears that he may be notable (award, bestseller claim, number of books sold) but as of right now this article is nothing but copyvio and a list of things he has written. Unless someone volunteers to completely rewrite this, it needs to be deleted, probably speedily. TallNapoleon (talk) 08:40, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. So many books, so little notability. WWGB (talk) 11:12, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per copyvio concerns. In case you are wondering, I'm not related to this guy. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 21:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:02, 20 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 11:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Network (AdventureQuest)

"The Network" isn't even mentioned on the AdventureQuest main page. This also seems superfluous to List of characters in AdventureQuest. Pirate^Argh!!1! 07:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 16:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notability shown. RobJ1981 (talk) 21:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't assert notability. Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 11:13, 23 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 copyvio — Tivedshambo _(t/c) 06:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kirk lazarus

A biography of a non-notable fictional character, written with an in-universe perspective, and directly copied from http://www.kirklazarus.com/. Panicneeds (talk) 06:42, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete violation of WP:COPYVIO. Marking for speedy delete. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:45, 17 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 per Alexf, non-admin closure. macy (talk) 16:20, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Cheetah Girls 4

Upcoming film speculation. Violates WP:NFF (principal photography not yet begun, and WP:CRYSTAL (no non-trivial verifiable information yet) gnfnrf (talk) 04:29, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:Notability (films): if a movie is in production and has reliable sources to back up its claims, then it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. I'm not sure this page meets these goals just yet. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 05:03, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NF. Really no reliable sources or information to back up this article. No prejudice against recreation later when more sources are available. -- Darth Mike _(Talk _{• Contribs)} 05:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above. WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NF. - Icewedge (talk) 05:11, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:CRYSTAL and no sources to back it up. Schuym1 (talk) 05:18, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability per WP:NFF. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 11:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball. -- iMatthew _T.C. 12:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the reasons given by the lister. - Tbsdy lives (talk) 12:45, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails film notability guidelines; the movie must be in production in order for it to merit an article.--T B C ♣§♠ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 12:49, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Synergy 16:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Shrinking of Treehorn

These books do not appear to be notable because I can't any reliable sources that show it's notability. Schuym1 (talk) 03:45, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, at least until someone's had a chance to go properly looking for notable sources. Failing that, Merge into a more suitable article. I read this most excellent story as a child, and this article [61] suggests that it's a lot more than your average vanity or fancruft article. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 09:12, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "The Shrinking of Treehorn" According to The Continuum Encyclopedia of Children's Literature, the book won a 1971 New York Times Best Illustrated Books of the year award, and the American Library Association cited it as a notable book ([62], page 326). I've found a Milwaukee Journal Sentinel article ([63]) which seems to be about the event in the article Chris cites. I've found some book sources ([64] pages 88-89, [65] page 223-226, [66] page 161 and possibly 162-164), that address some of the themes in Shrinking. Overall a google books search gets 173 hits, although some are the book itself. There are also 32 google scholar hits. I think all this suggests that "The Shrinking of Treehorn" is notable, although I haven't really looked for Treehorn's treasure. There are probably more sources out there. Silverfish (talk) 18:16, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per the first citation from Silverfish. Stifle (talk) 14:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources found by Silverfish do an ample job of showing notability. Edward321 (talk) 23:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:23, 20 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, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phelpsian Feat

WP:Neologism. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 03:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not for stuff you made up one day watching the Olympics. Movingboxes (talk) 03:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Take a minute to Google "Phelpsian Feat" and see what responses you get. This is a phrase that will likely be around for a while, and defining the reference is my intention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clickokay (talk • contribs) 03:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC) — Clickokay (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete - A google search only gives blogs as results, WP:NEO comes into question here and I think it fails. -- Darth Mike _(Talk _{• Contribs)} 05:06, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not the place to record something made up on the spur of the moment. WWGB (talk) 05:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice for re-creation, if, by some miracle, it actually does become a real noteworthy phrase. Umbralcorax (talk) 07:27, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wiki is not for things made up one day, namely neologisms like this. —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 08:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Defeat. Even though what Phelps did was really neat, that notability does not transfer over to a phrase created for the occasion. --Dhartung | Talk 11:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Something made up one day that isn't notable doesn't belong on an encyclopedia. Chet B. Long^Talk/_ARK 13:17, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let stand Reading the word in a political piece in today's New York Times, then Googling it, I was relieved to see a citation here. Lest we take ourselves too seriously, let's remember that Wikipedia is the first place many folks look.Ijmusic (talk) 14:54, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Just because someone coined a term about a notable person doesn't make the term notable; and this fails WP:NEO. Cliff smith ^talk 17:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NEO. NUKE IT! Tavix (talk) 19:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lest the people who think they made up something that's not ephemereal slang take themselves too seriously. JuJube (talk) 20:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a dictionary definition of a neologism. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable, spur of the moment neologism, i.e. protologism. Stifle (talk) 14:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge to Michael Phelps. While there are a few non-wiki ghits (84) and a few gnews hits (12), it's too soon to see if this has any staying power. Do the reader who searches for this term a favor and send them to Michael's page.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:32, 20 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 close) RMHED (talk) 19:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Angel (poker player)

unnotable poker player. No reliable sources besides a coatrack of "sources" at the bottom of article. Possible original research that would require a total rewrite to become encyclopedic. Tavix (talk) 03:19, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No assertion of notability. Note that "he won a lot of money" is not an assertion of notability. TallNapoleon (talk) 08:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Winning two World Series of Poker (and one Super Bowl of Poker) tournaments is plenty notable, even if they were back in the '70s, when the fields were small. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Maybe he is not as big a name as fellow 70s players Doyle Brunson, Amarillo Slim Preston or Puggy Pearson but winning 2 bracelets certainly should be notable enough - especially winning them back in the days when there were not more than 50 events a year. And he certainly still receives coverage in the Poker media, e.g. here. There were reports he is dying and later an obituary. It should not be held against him that his big wins were in the 70s when reports on Poker where less common. Gunnar Hendrich (talk) 08:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clearing things up. I knew he won the WSOP bracelets but since it was back in the '70s I wasn't sure how big of an accomplishment that was. Tavix (talk) 19:05, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Then the notability of this needs to be made clear in the article. TallNapoleon (talk) 17:57, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per Clarityfiend, but notability needs to be made clear in the article. JoshuaD1991 (talk) 13:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, more than enough notability shown. Stifle (talk) 14:20, 18 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, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bowling all-rounder

A dictionary definition of a term. Possible WP:NEOLOGISM with no reliable sources to be found. Tavix (talk) 03:11, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Dicdef. Also POVish using two people as an example. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 12:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom.--S_RX 20:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Adds no value to the cricket project or the encyclopaedia. The term is a nonsense because an all-rounder is someone who can perform well as both batsman and bowler; and though some all-rounders are arguably stronger as batsmen than as bowlers, and vice-versa, differentiation at this level is pointless. At best this could be merged into All-rounder but it has nothing to say that the current article could use. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 07:23, 22 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, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Dixon

Subject fails WP:MUSIC. Also appears to be a WP:COI issue as well. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 03:05, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject appears to fail WP:MUSIC and is non-notable. Movingboxes (talk) 03:09, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cited sources fail to meet WP:N, WP:MUSIC dissolve ^talk 03:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per responses above, most notably fails WP:MUSIC. -- Darth Mike _(Talk _{• Contribs)} 05:10, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a big helping of lack of notability, a splash of conflict of interest, and a notability not inherited cherry on top. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 12:06, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:33, 20 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. Clearly all respondents felt that this is non-notable, and therefore not appropriate for a stand-alone article. There also lacks any secondary sources to verify that this actually exists as an album or intentional collection of songs by the artist. Therefore merging the content is also not appropriate. Delete is the only option left. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 14:13, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Stage is Set for the Revival of an anthem

Not an album. Corvus cornix_talk 03:03, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How is it not an album? Just because it was only released online doesn't take away the fact that it is an album. Tavix (talk) 03:22, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It isn't an official album, just a bunch of demos released by a former band member.--T B C ♣§♠ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 12:55, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless references are added to satisfy WP:MUSIC: "Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only, and unreleased albums are in general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources." (emphasis mine) --Stormie (talk) 07:07, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Evans Blue#Discography , fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums. While there is proof that this albums exists, there is nothing to establish its notability. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 11:54, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - an album is an album even if it was only release online, though not notable to establish and article, redirect to Evans Blue.--S_RX 20:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable. Also: "An album is an album even if it was only release online" – yes, true, but this is not the case with this. This is not an album, it is several downloadable demos that would have been on an album. There is no suggestion the musician in question had any intention that these demos should be regarded together as a single, cohesive piece of work. The Stage is Set for the Revival of an Anthem is the title of another album that was never made, not of this. tomasz. 12:04, 21 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. - Mailer Diablo 18:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bedlam (2008 film)

Unnotable upcoming motion picture. After a search for reliable sources, I could come up with none. (Note: A lot of sources would be for other film(s) of the same name, check date of film first if doing a search).) Tavix (talk) 02:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Neither of the two filmmakers mentioned, "D'Arby Deck" nor "Brandon McClelland", appear in the IMDB nor in more than a few search results at all. D'Arby Deck appears to be affiliated with "D'Arby Deck Publishing" which has a website on a free hosting site, Freewebs.com. The upcoming projects page indicates that Deck and McClelland are friends from - and perhaps still in - high school. Doing a Google search on either of these people and the word "Bedlam" turn up no results other than this article. This is a vanity article at best, perhaps even a hoax. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 18:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Like the others above, I could not find any sources for this film. The supposed Official website for the film has no meaningful content, and I suspect it was created merley to perpetrate a hoax. PC78 (talk) 18:45, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -per nom.S_RX 20:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, WP:NFF, and WP:V. No assertion of notability. No proof of existance. Searches with various parameters find no reliable sources. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This seems to be an amateur film project put together by a few friends. The film's official website is hosted on a free server, none of the names of people involved in the making of the film return any usable hits on Google nor is there a record of a novella (as the article claims) on which the film is apparently based. It's not a hoax but there is absolutely no indication that the film will pass Wikipedia:Notability (films). SWik78 (talk • contribs) 20:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reached same conclusions as SWik78 after attempting search for this.-Hunting dog (talk) 21:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the aboveVrefron (talk) 02:08, 21 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 This guy is indeed notable, COI is a reason to fix. Sorry for the disruption I caused. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew

Saeed Shahram

Per WP:COI, autobiography. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:57, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep his work appears notable. Need more reliable sources but he may pass WP:BIO. Note, COI is a reason to fix, not necessarily a reason to delete if the person is notable. TravellingCari 04:10, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Traveling Cari's comment, COI is not a reason do delete and is notable per the cite TC presented.--S_RX 20:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment-This is the reason why I choose AFD rather than my usual CSD, so people can express their opinion. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Response and CSD would have been wholly inappropriate as His accomplishments include awards for the film "Two Sides of a Coin" and "Abadanies", the latter winning the prize for Best Film at the 1994 International Film Festival in Locarno, Switzerland. is an assertion of notability. It isn't speedyable in the slightest. TravellingCari 13:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw You're right. COI is a reason to fix, not delete. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:35, 21 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 essay. Sandstein 00:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mesoeconomics: A Micro-Macroeconomic Analysis

This appears to be an essay and is basically original research and non-encyclopedic. Nick Dowling (talk) 02:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Someone is posting their essay on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Tavix (talk) 03:23, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't seem to add anything of value to Mesoeconomics and appears to be an essay. JJL (talk) 03:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom.--S_RX 20:22, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly a violation of WP:OR: this is nothing more than an essay. Given its content, I'm not sure that there's an assertion of notability. WP:CSD? RJC ^{Talk Contribs} 23:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to mesoeconomics.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:55, 21 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) 18:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Devil's Weed

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Devil's Weed

~~A cigar company of dubious notability. Don't see how it meets the WP:CORP notability standard.~~ The author has added references to the article, but as cigars isn't my area of expertise (not that i have any expertise) I'm unsure if the sources provided are reliable or whether they establish notability. I therefore remain neutral. I would like for other editors to decide this issue. brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:20, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete blatant promotion of a not notable brand for SEO purposes Annette46 (talk) 02:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Annette46's reasoning, can't put it better than that. -- Darth Mike _(Talk _{• Contribs)} 05:11, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:COMPANY and per Annette's comment, couldn't say any better.--S_RX 20:22, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The brand has received recognition from secondary sources (look at updated Recognition section). The brand has distribution across the U.S. If you do not agree, please advise as to what other sources can help establish this brand as notable. Thanks! Lmolina21 (talk) 04:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reiterating my vote, some of those recognitions aren't major, they do verify and recognize the company in someway, but it's not like other cigarette companies.S_RX 00:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reiterate Delete even after rewrite it still smacks of WP:SPAM to me, and this is not a notable brand or a notable company. Annette46 (talk) 04:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment checked out the article again at a request on my talk page and I still agree with Annette46's comment. -- Darth Mike _(Talk _{• Contribs)} 08:55, 19 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) 18:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outside Play And Learning Book

This book does not appear to be notable because I can't find any reliable sources that show it's notability. Schuym1 (talk) 01:23, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable Annette46 (talk) 02:27, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N and WP:RS. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 12:45, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:N and WP:RS and per nom.--S_RX 20:21, 17 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 gone, copyvio confirmed. TravellingCari 04:07, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Testing Maturity Model

Copyvio, user deleted speedy tag , page violated = [67], diff of removal of speedy tag [68], 2 previous deletes [69] Pirate^Argh!!1! 01:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Copyvio. Schuym1 (talk) 01:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: Copyvio, (probably) fails notability. CSD-g12. Calor (talk) 02:18, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete copyvio Annette46 (talk) 02:25, 17 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) 18:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kris Thomas

Thomas' highest level of competition is Conference National, which is only a semi-professional league (fifth highest of the English football league divisions). He therefore fails WP:Athlete, which requires him to have "competed in a fully professional league". Debate 木 00:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Debate 木 00:54, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE. TerriersFan (talk) 01:07, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Page can be recreated if Kris makes the Premier League (or equivalent). Tavix (talk) 03:27, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE, WP:N, WP:BLP, WP:REF, WP:V, WP:RS.--S_RX 20:20, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with leave to recreate if Forest Green make it to League Two. Stifle (talk) 14:19, 18 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.