Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 August 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 27 August 29 >

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 keep. John254 00:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Varsity Fanclub

[edit]
Varsity Fanclub (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The latest boy b and sensation, apparently, though I can find no reliable sources from which to write an article. There are two Google news hits, and a couple of refs at abc.go.com where they got fanclubish interview questions, but they have yet to release an album, I can't find anything about whether their single charted or not. My speedy tag was removed as "could be notable" Corvus cornixtalk 23:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Maxim (☎) 19:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bridget Irish

[edit]
Bridget Irish (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Seems to be a non-notable local artist. All references I found were in the local The Olympian newspaper. SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:25, 20 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) 22:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The first reference is most definitely non-trivial. She is the primary subject of the article, and the second is arguable as it covers a festival in which she was a performer. -- Whpq (talk) 12:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment - On sources, the issue is not whether the article has sources, but whether sources exist. I've already shown that sources do exist that cover the artist, and for what it's worth, I've now added them to the article. -- Whpq (talk) 12:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: The Weekly Volcano fails WP:RS. While The Stranger is a more reliable paper to be sure, it has barely a two-sentence mention in an article that was about much more than just her. Furthermore, that paper is also a Seattle-based paper, proving that Irish is locally known, but not proving that she's notable. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 12:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - exactly... the article doesn't have any RELIABLE sources. -- JediLofty Talk to meFollow me 13:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - If local coverage is the concern, there is a review of her performance included in an overall festival review in the Boston Phoenix. Her work does appear to have attracted notice as her performances in festivals do get covered as part of overall festival coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 14:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral two of those, sources on the bottom is valid. Otherwise, somebody put a purple tag and tag for merge to a larger article instead.--Freewayguy What's up? 18:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Maxim (☎) 19:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Big Lie (The Adventures of McGee and Me)

[edit]
The Big Lie (The Adventures of McGee and Me) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This episode appears to not be notable. There is no episode list to redirect this to. Schuym1 (talk) 22:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep. John254 00:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Drake and Josh (videogame)

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Drake and Josh (videogame) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Twice PRODded article. The first PROD gave no reason so I removed it as invalid. The second PROD gave the reason that the article was non-notable. This was contested by another editor on the basis that this was also not a valid PROD. I'm not sure I agree with that, but I'm not sure I agree the game is non-notable either - Google seems to suggest it has had a lot of coverage. I don't personally like the article - it is not especially well written but WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason to delete. The article is, however, unreferenced and contains some opinion - it certainly needs improvement IMO, but I am neutral on deletion. As there are certainly at least two editors who think it should be deleted I am bringing it here to establish concensus. Ros0709 (talk) 22:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Maxim (☎) 19:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gina Marie May

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Gina Marie May (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Notability not established through reliable sources. IMDb doesn't show any notable roles. Wizardman 21:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete.
A Prodigy ~In Pursuit of Perfection~ 22:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Maxim (☎) 19:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's really nothing to merge.

25,000 BC in art

[edit]
25,000 BC in art (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is based on a time period from which hardly anything survives. In over one month of existance, no-one has bothered updating it with new information/references and etc. I just don't think it is important or detailed enough to remain on Wikipedia. It will do nothing to help anyone researching the respective title. Why should it remain? A Prodigy ~In Pursuit of Perfection~ 21:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Good reasons presented above. Also, the section in it labeled Art lists only two works, and one of them, the Venus of Willendorf, is stated as being created between 22,000 and 24,000 BC which means it doesn't satisfy the conditions established by this article's name. This article just has no discernible utility. --Quartermaster (talk) 21:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also may I add, how can anyone hope to fill in the Events, Births and Deaths sections? You may as well ask me to stop bullets in their track by just holding out my hand. A Prodigy ~In Pursuit of Perfection~ 21:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, these "[year] in x" articles are usually garbage, and on top of that it does not make sense to speak of 25,000 BC as a year. There is no reason to have a year in x article in this case, information should be, and probably already is, in a real article, i.e. prose. Punkmorten (talk) 22:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for good reasons above. Could have been WP:PROD without a "vote". ~ Ningauble (talk) 22:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: About as possible as "10,000 BC in NASCAR". Nom and above commenters summarize perfectly. Calor (talk) 22:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge:I agree with the above assertion that the birth/death section headings are not applicable in this case and should be removed (was included most likely as a template copy/paste). However I disagree with the notion that this article should be deleted. I don't understand the "it hasn't been updated in a month" argument at all - under that criteria hundreds of thousands of articles would have to be deleted everyday. I would not in a million years (pardon the pun) think spontaneously to do a search for Venus of Willendorf - never heard of it individually. But a person may be interested in finding out what type of art was being produced during certain time periods. I suggest instead of simply deleting - merge this with some of the other prehistoric "years in art" into a larger article with more content, rather than being so compartmentalized. I suggest perhaps on List of years in art that this article gets combined with other articles currently listed under the "Paleolithic" heading. That would most likely make this more useful than as it exists now. Keithh (talk) 23:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the information into an article on prehistoric art (I'm sure there's one around). I don't mind the XX in Art articles (I don't get the bias against them from others), but in this case this isn't even an exact year. No one has dated anything to exactly 25,000 BC, and there are other factors that render this rather useless. The fact this was a cut-and-paste also suggests little thought was given to the article. I do, however, agree with Keithh's statement that "lack of activity" is not a valid AFD criteria. Lots of articles are created as stubs and go for months and even years before anything is done with them. Wikipedia has no time limit. 23skidoo (talk) 13:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete at worst, Redirect at best. These kind of titles should be used when you can, with reasonable accuracy, place something to some specific year. If all we have are rough estimates (and both referenced articles mention estimates that are within a couple of thousand years) they should be put to some article with a wider coverage. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 13:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Maxim (☎) 19:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Central Asia Health Review

[edit]
Central Asia Health Review (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Badly-garbled "article" about a non-notable online magazine which, when searched for with Google '-wikipedia' only comes up with 6 hits: [6]. This article has already been deleted once via a prod, but the recreation indicates an objection to a prod, so it can't be speedy deleted now. But read this thing. Everything but the first and the last sentence is just... nothing. Corvus cornixtalk 21:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Angelo (talk) 08:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andre Akpan

[edit]
Andre Akpan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Player does not sufficiently satisfy WP:ATHLETE in that they have not played a game for a fully professional league, noting that soccer is a professional sport. In addition, player does not sufficiently satisfy the notability criteria guidelines as outlined by WP:FOOTY in that they do not play for a professional team, have played in a competitive fixture, or have senior international caps/Olympics caps. GauchoDude (talk) 20:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Scottish Unionist Party (1986). --Reinoutr (talk) 10:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish Unionist Youth

[edit]
Scottish Unionist Youth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Youth wing of the Scottish Unionist Party, a minor party with less than 120 members, that is highly regional, and only contested six council seats in one election. In addition, the party has never won an election. Should be merged into main article. Also notability query, since December. - MacRusgail (talk) 20:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mr.Z-man 02:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Holt (designer)

[edit]
Michael Holt (designer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:N, WP:V. Wizardman 20:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support deletion. With all due respect for Holt, he is not particularly a notable figure in the world. Lack of detail and everything you yourself pointed out. I don't see any particular reason to oppose this request. Not unless someone performs a miracle act to turn the article around -_- A Prodigy ~In Pursuit of Perfection~ 21:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Plies (rapper), in the absence of any reliably-sourced material beyond the name of the album. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 21:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Da Realist

[edit]
Da Realist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Originally proposed for deletion, I thought consensus would be better to settle it. As for my actual vote, I say Redirect to Plies (rapper), as there's not enough third-party info yet, but when such becomes available, it can be restored without a lengthly Deletion review process. Tom Danson (talk) 19:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article has sources that say that the album is real and that Plies is recording new songs for it. SE KinG (talk) 21:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No reliable sources. Wordpress is for PR releases. Corvus cornixtalk 21:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Plies myspace says "DA REALEST COMING IN DECEMBER" or whatever it says. SE KinG (talk) 21:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't even mention the Myspace link in my comment because I thought it was obvious. MySpace is not and has never been considered a reliable source. Corvus cornixtalk 21:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention a single has already been released and the fact that on "Definition of Real" it says something like "Da Realist... third times a charm." or something. SE KinG (talk) 03:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Adding on. How about Plies official website? Last time I checked, a lot of album articles use artists official sites as reliable references.

Carlols 88 10:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Plies (rapper), album fails WP:MUSIC, no mergeworthy, verifiable content that isn't already in target article.
    The name of the album is backed by the reliable, primary source given above. Primary sources can very well be used to extract facts, and it is in that respect the most reliable source of all. AmaltheaTalk 13:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Maxim (☎) 19:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Racism faced by Bihari people in India

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Racism faced by Bihari people in India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fantastic hoax. Complete and unbridled OR. Almost none of the references mentioned in the lead even remotely make a reference to India, let alone Bihar or Biharis! The author seems to have given a free run to his imagination. Sarvagnya 19:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • there are 60+ cititations from major indian sources (NDTV, Times of India, Hindu, etc)
  • each one from a reliable source inside India
  • this is a debate currently inside Bihar and india as seen in ALL the sources. chk sources
  • each of the indicents are real and have been backed up
  • the arguments are valid, sourced and reliable.
  • it is about Bihar and Biharis - pls show where it isn't
  • point is that this is already public news and information- hence 60+ references
  • article does not take itself too seriously. Its small and well referenced. its a serious topic. reports of people being deported and murdered. hope that is enough for you to take seriously.
  • places in to context prejudices held by indians, which have been documented by indians, like M J Akbar
  • your statement above that it has nothing to do with biharis shows that you choose not to read the article
  • you stated that people react to bad behaviour, which isnt racist. Are you sure? why are people being up rooted and killed for "bad behaviour"?
  • deleting will result in an important current event being taken off wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Notashamed (talk • contribs) 20:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notshamed, I fixed your comment. Now to my opinion on this situation.
  • Comment I still have difficulty accepting racism as the right word. I should have thought that people from Bihar and the people who discriminate them (as per the article) belong to the same race. Pls correct me if I am wrong. Wouldnt it then be just prejuduce or decrimination or some other more appropriate word? DockuHi 02:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I understand that but Afd isn't the right place to have that discussion. :) Whether or not it's racism, I think it should be merged with Bihari people and a definition of racism belongs under racism rather than here. :)--S Marshall Talk/Cont 02:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Racism faced by Bihari community is an extensive subject and therefore needs a separate article. Offcourse the subject should be briefly discussed in the main article on Bihari people. Manoj nav (talk) 19:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hold: I have renamed it to Anti-Bihari sentiment in India and am trying to improve the content. --KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 13:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)ur[reply]
  • There was hardly any material in the article at the time the tag was placed. The tag was removed and a new 'under construction' tag was placed. Almost the whole current content of the article has been added afterwards. The history can be read at the article's discussion page.Manoj nav (talk) 19:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your move to a new title is disingenuous and does not make it any less of a hoax. Biharis enjoy the same rights under the Indian constitution that other Indians enjoy. The very premise of the article is WP:OR. Sarvagnya 19:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP, please: If someone is anti-black, anti hindu or anti jewish what are called? from my understanding they are called racists. From what I can gather, Biharis are facing somthing very similar inside India, and outside the Hindi belt. I think if you are on the recieving end of anti Bihari feeling, you would call it racist. Its what I read when i go to Bihari websites. Will leave it to you all to decide its fate, but its a pity that there is a dispute over an issue that has led to the deaths of hundreds and deportation. So much for Wikipedia

Comment BIMARU has nothing to do with anti-Bihari sentiment as mentioned in the article. It constitutes WP:SYN. BIMARU is a humorous epithet used to describe economically backward and crime-prone states. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • BIMARU is part of the problem also. It is a prejudiced view of Hindi speaking India...the northern states. Any other name could have been chosen to describe these states, but one that relates to the Hindi word for sick has to be questioned. UP is the second richest Indian state by GDP, Bihar has one of the higest growth rates, Rajasthan has its top tourist attractions, MP has economically advanced regions like Bhopal and Indore. Why isnt Maharasdhtra or AP. For they have rural pverty to such an extent they have farmer sucides + AP has maoist violence which doesnt exist in MP, Rajasthan, and most of UP. Why isnt the North East part of BIMARU, what is so good about those states? What about J&K, West bengal? What makes WB stand out over UP, which is richer and better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frompatna (talk • contribs) 14:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You need a reference to equate the epithet BIMARU with the phrase "anti-Bihari sentiment". The reference provided for BIMARU [12] does not mention "anti-Bihari sentiment". Thus it is original research when you call BIMARU is part of anti-Bihari sentiment. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could find a reference. http://www.livemint.com/2007/07/11001558/Ashish-Bose--The-man-who-coin.html It says, - "It was in the early 1980s that Bose made headlines by calling a spade a spade. Indian academicians tend to be politically correct and avoid terms that could insult a community or large groups of people. But in a one-page synopsis submitted to the then prime minister, Rajiv Gandhi, Bose blamed the “Bimaru” states for India’s burgeoning population. The now well-known acronym stands for Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh. However, the term had an uncanny resemblance to the Hindi word bimar, which means sick—and implied that these states also were." I will call this racism in place of anti-Bihari sentiments. The article was originally titled 'Racism faced by the people of Bihar', which has been later changed by someone. In time to come we will cite more references. Manoj nav (talk) 19:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Today on CNNIBN "Alienating Bihar? Does it hurt when Goa minister Ravi Naik said that people of Bihar are coming across and bringing poverty, when Raj Thackeray said that the people of Bihar must get out of Maharashtra? When racism and prejudice is directed against the people of Bihar, does it hurt and one feel that there is something that one must do for the state?"

I leave it for you, fair minded editors, to decide. I sign off hoping that Truth will win (Satyameva Jayate) over a scam so-called editor do is determind to delete without proper discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frompatna (talk • contribs) 22:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP : It is absolutely essential that we keep this article. Indeed, it is not 'racism' but 'discrimination' and Biharis and the rest of Indians belong to the same race. Semantics apart, the discrimination against Biharis is a fact which cannot be brushed aside by deleting this article. I am also an Indian. But I cannot keep my eyes closed and assume that everything is hunky dory.

Govt of India plans for dev called five year plans have had Bihari per capita share as the lowest in each of the 13 plans since independence. States like J&K get ten times as much, punjab gets 6 to 8 times and Karnataka gets 4 times at an average. Bihar has no IIM, central universities or DRDO / CSIT lab. The government owned banks called PSU banks have a credit deposit ratio of 30%. In effect, 70% of the capital of Bihar gets exported. National editors like Rajdeep Sardesai use terms like Biharisation when they wish to mean criminalisation. I can go on and on, but in short, deleting this article will be like denying the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.107.154 (talk) 10:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep but rewrite The topic is important enough to warrant inclusion, but it needs a more neutral tone. As politically incorrect as it may seem, communities outside Bihar that feel negatively impacted deserve their "day in court" as well as stating Bihari grievances. The article needs to be shortened. The theme seems to be that unemployment, poverty, overpopulation, landlessness and catastrophe (such as floods) in Bihar have caused a diaspora. Communities on the receiving ends have a litany of complaints about the immigrants, and indulge in stereotyping. This could probably be done at the right level of detail for Wikipedia in a few thousand words.

Remember, this isn't quite unique in human history. We have the English rejecting the Irish, "Okies" escaping their dustbowl and meeting prejudice in California, the Black diaspora from the South into cities in the upper Midwest, Russian disdain for Armenians and Georgians, anti-Chinese prejudice in Malaysia, Moslems in western Europe, Nepalese getting kicked out of Bhutan, and I'm going to stop but there are plenty more. LADave (talk) 20:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP: The article must be kept and continued. It gives a true picture of the hate and discrimination Biharis are facing in India outside Bihar. By migrating to other placed in India, they do no crime. This is a right given to every citizen of this country by the constitution. Then why should some one be allowed to impose their will and wishes over the rules written in the constitution. I strongly believe, this article must be continued. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.87.1.170 (talk) 07:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete: Saying that Biharis face racism in India is as funny as saying that Texans face racial discrimination in USA. Totally POV. Jingoistic sentiment is found everhwere in India. Every linguistic group in India feels that it is "discriminated against" in some way or the other. If this article is kept we will soon have a hundred "Racism against X in India" put up by every disgruntled jingoist. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Nor is it a newspaper. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 18:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response to Deepak> Not at all sir. It says more about a country if 100's of minorities/ regional groups feel discriminated against. Are there others? Of course there are. And they should be part of Wikipedia. These events are part of any industralisation process, and like witht he UK, USA, Germany etc it should be recored in history forever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Notashamed (talk • contribs) 19:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Last point to user Deepak> The situation of Biharis is not like Texans. Its a poor comparison. Its more like African Americans, Native Americans, Irish in the UK, Tamils in Lanka, Indians in Fiji. These communities have been prejudiced against not only by the state, but also local communities.
  • Keep, Wrong reason for deletion. Article is well sourced with reliable source. --SkyWalker (talk) 12:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Being a hoax is no reason for deletion? And... "Article is well sourced with reliable source..." -- which article are you talking about? Sarvagnya 18:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 12:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interdependence day

[edit]
Interdependence day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable "holiday" Corvus cornixtalk 19:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, ok. I don't think so Interdependence Day is not a holiday - nor does it say it is. and thats really rather rude. This is a nonprofit sponsored international event that includes participants from the realms of scholars, politicians, artists, and young people seeking to find solutions to some of the biggest global problems of our time. Its name happens to be Interdependence Day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CivWorld (talk • contribs) 19:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hardly think a collection of prominent individuals from a dozen nations would try to stage something non-notable, especially in prestigious cities such as Rome (and Brussels in the future). Keep this article, who knows the heights this event may reach in the future? It's early days at this point. A Prodigy ~In Pursuit of Perfection~ 19:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to say this, but I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not... Lady Galaxy 20:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I'm not, I guess we just don't see eye-to-eye. A Prodigy ~In Pursuit of Perfection~ 21:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Up and coming next big thing. Corvus cornixtalk 20:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One thing I just noticed: The link for the website of the "day" is to a website called CivWorld. The same name as the creator of the article. Conflict of interest. Corvus cornixtalk 20:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, and particularly per nom at 20:40 immediately above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Markdsgraham (talk • contribs) 23:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep weak delete: A few of the hits at GoogleScholar look like analysis/coverage of this annual gathering of luminaries. (Although most of the 34 hits look useless. Happy browsing!) ~ Ningauble (talk) 00:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Capable of being sourced, over 100 hits in Google News archive. COI is an issue though. Richard Pinch (talk) 07:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then please don't just wave your hand and say it could be sourced, please provide those sources. Corvus cornixtalk 18:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Per WP:N "When discussing whether to delete or merge an article due to non-notability, the discussion should focus not only on whether notability is established in the article, but on what the probability is that notability could be established. If it is likely that independent sources could be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate unless active effort has been made to find these sources. For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort."
        • Per WP:RS: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves". If you can't find reliable sources, then WP:V comes into play, and just expecting reliable sources to magically show up is wishful thinking. We might as well just shut down AfD and follow the logic of "capable of being sourced" to its logical conclusion. Anything is "capable" of being sourced if nobody wants to bother looking for the sources. Corvus cornixtalk 23:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • The question raised by the nomination is not whether the article is accurate but whether the subject is notable. The bar is set at the rather low "likely that sources could be found". No-one has yet suggested that one can't find them: I don't see any evidence that anyone has looked hard. Richard Pinch (talk) 17:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Changed my vote above to weak delete: Instead of might be notable, I am thinking might not. Looking more closely at the GoogleScholar hits, they all appear to be either off-topic or mere mentions. From major news outlets, I got nothing. There is some light coverage in obscure sources: Third World Traveller Sep 12, 2003[13]; Bucks County Courier Times, Sep 16, 2003[14] (criticism); UN Chronicle, Mar 1, 2004[15]; Electric City, Sep 9, 2004 (local)[16]; Phi Delta Kappan, Nov 1, 2006[17]. Existence is readily verified (E.g. USC Center on Public Diplomacy[18] but notability seems lost in the limbo of big shots doing grassroots organizing. ~ Ningauble (talk) 20:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails its notability check, at this point. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Angelo (talk) 08:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Damien McCrory

[edit]
Damien McCrory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Looking at his Plymouth profile, the player has not played in a professional, competitive match; therefore, failing WP:ATHLETE. As playing for the Republic of Ireland U18s, youth internationals do not confer notability. Latics (talk) 19:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Maxim (☎) 19:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Young (artist)

[edit]
Terry Young (artist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Doesn't seem particularly notable to me, although I am not an artist. Opinions? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 18:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hmmm, I would probably have to agree with you on this issue. I don't know if there are any high prestige awards for succesfull and/or popular artists, but if there are, this chap has won diddly-squit as there is no mention of anything on the page. It would be nice to have examples of his work displayed on the article to increase it's value factor, but seeing as there are none and considering it's small amount of information, I support the call for deletion. A Prodigy ~In Pursuit of Perfection~ 19:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no evidence of notability as an artist provided or found. A lot of Gnews hits for him in Pittsburgh Post Gazette, but as byline, where he's apparently working as journalist, which doesn't in itself confer notability either - Hunting dog (talk) 21:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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), Nomination withdrawn. Whpq (talk) 13:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nastia Kamenskikh

[edit]
Nastia Kamenskikh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable singer as she only has 41 hits on Google. Pie is good (Apple is the best) 18:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn - Corvus cornix has done a great job looking for those sources. I never knew that Nastya and Nastia could be used interchangeably, so I never got his search results. Pie is good (Apple is the best) 23:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John254 00:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Catlin (surgery)

[edit]
Catlin (surgery) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is even worse than a stub, a single useless sentance. Hopeless for those who want to do some serious research on the item. It contains no refrences to helpful websites whatsoever and neither does it boast a single picture. Basically I think this article is a waste of space, I've seen more informative topics deleted therefore and see no need for the existance of this.

Note: I know the catergory for this AfD seems odd (as Catlin is actually in a catergory), but it was the most sensible option I could take.A Prodigy ~In Pursuit of Perfection~ 18:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So I suspect that it will be deleted anyway? I wasn't too sure whether it would be in the process, hence half the reason why I nominated this. A Prodigy ~In Pursuit of Perfection~ 19:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Maxim (☎) 19:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Colibri (software)

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

Another program that does not come close to meeting the notability guidelines and contains no references. GtstrickyTalk or C 18:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cirt (talk) 03:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Corporate Gothic

[edit]
Corporate Gothic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested PROD; this article violates WP:NFT and WP:NEO, probably violates WP:NOR, and may additionally violate WP:SOAP and WP:IINFO. Article was previously deleted by WP:CSD#A7 as a group that doesn't assert notability. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 18:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • I object to the deletion:
    • I object WP:NFT: Corporate Gothic exists and it is a part of the Gothic Subculture. The term also exist in the Wiki slang dictionary.
    • I object WP:NEO: terms like Mods and Punks are neologisms from origin as well. They exist on wiki because of the fact that there are or were a lot of people calling themself that way. There is a whole community in the states, calling themself CorpGoth. --78.22.1.50 (talk) 18:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)--CorpGoth (talk) 15:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I object also- the above point is a valid one, Corp Goth can denote a social subset or also a style aesthetic such as cyberpunk, crypto-anarchism, or Steampunk. I think the article needs some work on it, could use a revision but I think if your going to delete it completely you have to delete the others also - and no-one wants to see that.
    • No, we wouldn't need to delete any other articles than this one, considering WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 05:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've been reading WP: OTHERSTUFEXISTS. I must say I am quite fascinated by the pokemon test. Because it is actually quite simular to the problem we are facing here. You have to know, at the moment there are -inside the Gothic scene- about 21 stereotypes. Some of them, like The Victorian Goth and The Metalhead (from origine not even a Goth...) are very well documentend. Others like The Cabaret Goth or The Corp Goth we are discussing here, are -in relation to mainstream- rather rare. I -as a simple guest- think it would be a good idea if we would make a list with 'The Gothic Stereotypes'. In stead of waiting for new references to Corp Goth, to enlarge the artikle, we can simplifie it and place it on one single page amon with its 20 brothers and sisters. I would say, the wiki version of this: http://www.blackwaterfall.com/viewall.php

It is only a sugestion? --78.22.1.50 (talk) 16:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Article is about a style of fashion that exists in the world, not an organization. Seems like the sort of thing WP should try to cover, and sources could be found. Try back issues of the "style" section of New York Times Magazine or various British newspapers. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I agree, the A7 deletion may have been a mistake, but I disagree that the article passes WP:NOT and WP:N generally. The only source currently in the article that passes WP:RS would be the NYT article, which mentions the term "corp-goth" once, and in the context of a company's product line. There are one or two other mentions and a smattering of cursory mentions in other mainstream media. The argument here would be whether these constitute "multiple significant" mentions. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 05:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Would a company produce a "product line" if the style of fashion and/or life style did not exist? I am sure somewhere amongst all the GHits and the few GNewsHits there are reliable sources. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 04:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You may not think so, but I do. And seeing as WP:V is a satisfied policy, and WP:N is only a movable guideline, I think we should give it a chance. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 02:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep. John254 00:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Skateboarding brands

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

This is pure listcruft - a list for a list's sake - 90% redlinks, serves no encyclopedic purpose. ukexpat (talk) 17:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I disagree. The existing links actually take the user to articles which (in most cases), contain a decent chunk of information. Pictures even in some occasions! Removing the article in question would make it extreemely hard for viewers to find their desired brand. Although I admit, first the brand in question would actually need an article! Also seeing as sections 1.1, 1.1.1 and 1.5 have a decent amount of internal links, I change my stance. Keep this article. A Prodigy ~In Pursuit of Perfection~ 19:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No reasonable argument has been advanced for deletion. Redlinks are how the encyclopedia grows; many of the redlinks here point to articles that Wikipedia should have, but doesn't. -- Dominus (talk) 19:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Though shouldn't it be called List of skateboarding brands? Ostap 03:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - passed AFD only a few months ago and articles that pass with Keep decisions should not be repeatedly nominated in such a short period of time. The renaming suggestion in the previous AFD should be implimented. 23skidoo (talk) 13:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I don't really see any difference from this article's last AfD until today. The decision made in the last AfD back in April would basically be the same now, IMO. Also, just because an article has many red links, doesn't make that a delete rationale. WP:REDLINKS shows exactly what to do when there are red links in an article: Create them! Red links show that there is an article not yet created, but editors can create it. There's no such policy that states that articles with too many red links should be deleted. If a notable article was to be deleted, and it had many red links in it, it would actually hurt Wikipedia for 1) deletion of a perfectly notable article, and 2) the red links that could lead to the creation of them are now gone (assuming that the red links were about notable subjects) and the chances of the red links being created by editors drop. -- RyRy (talk) 16:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 12:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Woodford

[edit]
Dave Woodford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not notable. Individual is a low-level police officer whose name has been in the media on occasion due to his job as a junior spokesman for the OPP, not due to any notable actions or accomplishments. Should he indeed be promoted to replace his retiring superior, Cam Woolley, as is suggested in the article, AND achieve Woolley's level of notoriety, then MAYBE he will be deserving of his own entry. Until then, there is nothing to suggest he is notable enough to warrant his own entry. PoliSciMaster (talk) 17:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin standiford

[edit]
Kevin standiford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable engineer/author. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a lineReview Me! 17:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. TexasAndroid (talk) 18:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James Chisolm

[edit]
James Chisolm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable athlete... The article makes a short mention that he is an assistant coach for a team that hasn't even played a game yet, then the bulk of the rest of the article is regarding his (non-notable) high school football career (as a player, not coach)... an online search yields no reliable sources, nor anything newsworthy... Fails WP:ATHLETE, as well as WP:V... - Adolphus79 (talk) 17:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. John254 00:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gaba Kawa

[edit]
Gaba Kawa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:BK and WP:MOS-AM#Notability. No extensive coverage in any reliable sources. What is there now is all that it can ever be. Even JA wiki has no article on this short, one-shot title. As a note, I am the one who created this article, and I prodded it. Prod was removed with note of "rm prod. I could careless what ja does or doesn't do. it's being published in english, it's covered in ann - good enough for me." Obviously, I disagree as the reason given does not address the lack of meeting the guidelines about books and manga titles. A single non Japanese publisher does not meet the additional notability option for manga titles. Being listed in ANN is meaningless with regards to notability. An ANN listing is no different than an IMDB listing, its a directory of almost every manga and anime title every released. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Could this be the long lost cousin of Baba Wawa?? Mandsford (talk) 17:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Things don't seem quite as clearcut as you suggest, but we're way out on the fringe of policy where it's barely possible to support a weak "keep" or "delete". Deleting it on the basis of "what there is now is all that it can ever be" is a violation of WP:CRYSTAL, though, and significant since it hasn't yet seen individual American release yet and won't till the end of the year. As for sources, a bit of legwork in Google shows that while it doesn't have any mainstream reliable coverage (few mangas do), there are a lot of sources (such as about.com) that have covered it to some extent and might or might not be considered reliable. I'm not going to pursue it by arguing for a keep here, though, because this manga really doesn't warrant it - even if the notability rules were more suited to manga, it'd still be pretty non-notable. Gelmax (talk) 23:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can see your point on Crystal, but it has completed serialization in Shojo Beat with little coverage at all. The about.com notes all seem to just note its appearance in the manga, and are little more than press release. Most licensed manga do have coverage in reliable sources. Even its ANN entry is barebones, despite its being licensed. I work extensively on manga/anime projects, so I debated long and hard before nominating this one for deletion, but I just can't see it being a notable volume. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I considered disputing the prod, but couldn't quite convince myself not to. The grounds I considered doing it is that if it's licensed in English, it is very likely also licensed in multiple other languages (if only in Asia) which means it'd pass WP:MOS-AM#Notability. OTOH, without a working knowledge of any other Asian languages, though, it's pretty hard to come up with evidence of this. On the third tentacle, once the volume is published, it's more likely to get noticed and reviewed, since reviewers rarely notice series from serialization in Shojo Beat. But then again, I've seen hardly any mention of this in forums where Shojo Beat is avidly discussed. So ... um. We're on the thin edge of the notability wedge here, and I can't tell which side the slice goes. Yet. —Quasirandom (talk) 04:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on technical grounds, since internationally published books have generally been accepted as meeting notability requirements, especially when they are by authors with other notable works. That said, if the author has a number of borderline notable manga, a List of manga by Rie Takada (or similarly titled page) might allow a better encyclopedic presentation than a number of separate eternally lousy pages. --erachima talk 19:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - if the only real argument for deletion is borderline notability and even the nom is wringing her hands over it (admit it... you're still not sure ;) ), an invocation of WP:PAPER may be appropriate: there is no limit to the number of subjects we can cover, so if a subject is possibly notable, why not just cover it? This may also be a rather obtuse example of WP:POTENTIAL, as the manga is being published in English later this year, which means there could be some reliable sources with new information spring up. —Dinoguy1000 20:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. TexasAndroid (talk) 18:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Karthik Kumar N G (Vishwa)

[edit]
Karthik Kumar N G (Vishwa) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I can't find reliable sources to verify the content of the page or even that the subject exists at all. If it can be sourced that he has played cricket at state level then he is notable and I will withdraw the nomination. TerriersFan (talk) 16:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Maxim (☎) 19:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phathom

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


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. GlassCobra 16:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sapientech

[edit]
Sapientech (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Reads like an ad, no sources, doesn't seem notable to me. Speedy tag removed by author without reason. Cliff smith talk 16:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Google news gives many hits that appear to establish notability. Consensus also shows keep. Malinaccier (talk) 00:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Skate punk

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Skate punk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
  • Where are you getting that its a widely discussed subgenre? Hardcore or Pop punk are widely discussed subgenres, but skate punk?
Also Wikipedia:Notability (music) does not list criteria for genre, so I'm basing the rational off of Wikipedia:Notability, as it does not seem the article has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.Hoponpop69 (talk) 19:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A fair question. I got it from Special:WhatLinksHere/Skate_punk. Many of those links result from its inclusion in {{Punk}}, but many do not. It was clear that hundreds of different Wikipedia articles were discussing or at least mentioning skate punk, so I concluded that it was widely discussed".
However, since you asked, I did a Google News search and found over 1,000 results; scanning the first page suggested that most of these were indeed referring to the musical subgenre and not to skate punks themselves. Top hit is from a 2003 USA Today article; #2 hit from a 2000 Seattle Post-Intelligencer article specifically about the subject. Hit #80 is from a 1995 Rolling Stone article. The phenomenon clearly exists, has done for a significant amount of time, and is widely-recognized.
Now where are you getting that it is not a widely-discussed genre? -- Dominus (talk) 20:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Rename to List of chess video games. Personally I'd prefer to drop the "video" from that title, but we'll go with the existing consensus first and the actual name can be discussed on the article's talk page later. Waggers (talk) 13:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Nintendo DS chess games

[edit]
List of Nintendo DS chess games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I am somewhat concerned about the notability of this topic. The DS hasn't been famous for chess games, nor has it received tons of coverage because of it's chess games.  Marlith (Talk)  17:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - This is a list of chess games, several are listed and more are in the process of being written Fritz it is nice to have a list for this topic to allow other users easy access to the chess programs available for the Nintendo DS and add any other chess games that they are aware of. 19:57, 23 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Green Squares (talk • contribs)
This is nonsense, you cannot categorize an article if it has not been written yet. You see those red links at the list? That means no article has been written. Lists allow red links so people can know a topic exists and then hopefully an editor can come along and write an article about it in the future. Green Squares (talk) 10:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm talking about overcategorization (regardless whether or not it'd a list or category) and not about redlinks. Please re-read my statement above. MuZemike (talk) 18:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Change to merge to a new article titled List of chess video games as Someone another mentioned below. This should get rid of the WP:OCAT problem as well as help expand the list. MuZemike (talk) 18:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename List of chess video games or similar, covering all formats, and populate. As a chronological list containing release dates, platforms and any relevant notes it would be a useful research tool and navigational list for those interested in video chess and those interested in the game's jump to computer games and spread on the medium. Someoneanother 11:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would think that they would already be listed there. MuZemike (talk) 18:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then I would think the problem is already solved. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 23:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't having such an article result in a massive unsourceable list? A search on GameFAQs returns 150 results and that's only including chess games that actually have the word 'chess' in the title. This also doesn't include the vast number of chess games released on cellphones, compilation games, alternate versions/plays/takes on chess that have obscure names and chess programs that were included in many '84 Apple computers. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 01:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
150 is certainly manageable compared to the over 850 titles in the List of NES games or the over 1100 titles in the List of Famicom games. MuZemike (talk) 01:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
90% of the content on both of those lists are sourced and link to articles about the games in question. While 150+ may be much more manageable than 850 or 1100, is it really feasible to think that even 50% of the games listed in the GameFAQs search could be properly sourced and have non-stub articles written for them? -- Jelly Soup (talk) 02:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For lists, each item does not necessarily need to be notable, just verified that it exists. As long as the list as a whole is inherently notable and does not constitute WP:OCAT, then it's fine. MuZemike (talk) 05:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 15:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Correction: for any old acceptable list. Obviously, featured lists face much more scrutiny as far as notability of each individual item is concerned. MuZemike (talk) 05:25, 26 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, MuZemike (talk) 16:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No consensus to delete. Malinaccier (talk) 00:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of number-one albums in Australia during the 1970s

[edit]
List of number-one albums in Australia during the 1970s (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This page, along with these related articles:

List of number-one albums in Australia during the 1980s (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of number-one albums in Australia during the 1990s (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

are being nominated for the same reasons as this page. Each individual year listed on all of these pages now has their own separate article. However, during the deletion discussion of the 1960s page, the idea of merging the list or each separate article was brought up, this may be a better option. Classicrockfan42 (talk) 16:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although the way that classicrockfan42 has now configured the list year by year is good and has obviously been a lot of work for him, as the creator of the original list, I object to the removal of this page on a number of grounds:

please bare with me if I repeat myself, but I am passionate to defend my original work, which took a long time to complete.

1) I would like an online resource that shows how long each album spent at number one. This new version does not show this. In the way it has been split up now, classicrockfan42 has failed to include the number of weeks that each album spent at number one. For one, I use this information in research for a radio show I produce, which is one of the reasons I put this list on the internet originally. It will take a lot of work to reinclude this information in the new chart format that classicrockfan42 has produced, and if he does not wish to include this, you couuld perhaps argue that in effect vandalised my original work (if the original is removed) has been vandalised, and turned it into a lesser quality product with the omission of weeks spent at No 1. I do not wish to spend several hours putting this info back in to his newly created product (which in turn may also make him very angry), because someone decided to take a knife to my original work. If you look at the way that the British chart entries are done, they show the entire decade at a glance List_of_number-one_albums_(UK) (although admittedly this is an external site.

Currently, if you wish to quote how many weeks an album was at number one, you have to count it manually, as this info is missing. You may also get an incorrect number due to the reasons given in point 1. Albums at number one also sometimes follow a haphazard pattern of the distribution of weeks at the top. You'll find an example of this during 1971/2/3 with such albums as COCKER HAPPY, SLADE ALIVE! and TEASER AND THE FIRECAT. They do not spend a certain amount of weeks at number one in a solid block. If the number of weeks at #1 are given in a decade wide spread with numbers of weeks at #1 next to each seperate entry, then a more accurate picture is achieved.

2) The new format, which it appears has only been done to make it the same formatting as similar USA entries, makes it more difficult to have a larger overview of the chart situation. For example, if an album was number one during more than one year, you don't get a feel for how long it was at the top (EG. Neil Diamond'S HOT AUGUST NIGHT was number one for 29 weeks at various times right throughout 1973 & 1974. Splitting the list up into years only will give the reader a false impression about the longevity of certain albums in some cases. it is not always easy to count up on each page how many weeks an album spent at #1, as it may have been spread out over a 2 year period at number one. This is especially so for albums at number one over the Xmas period. This is where a decade list is much more useful in tracking the performance of an album at the number one position. eg 1971-1972 TEASER AND THE FIRECAT by cat Stevens spent 15 weeks at No 1, over the Christmas period. You don't get this picture in the way it has been newly formatted, you only get the view of 1971 or 1972. The new way it has been formatted gives no provision to show that it also charted at No 1 in the following or previous year. If you wish to look at the popularity of an artist, such as THE BEATLES for the 1960s, or ABBA, ROD STEWART, ELTON JOHN, say for the 1970s, it is much easier to do so with the decade format with an overview rather than scrolling through various pages for each year of a decade to get an overview.

3) I see no reason why my version and the version created by classicrockfan42 cannot exist side by side. I would strongly object to the removal of the page I originally created, as it took several weeks of solid work to put it together, as an online resource. Perhaps classicrockfan42 would like to add more of his own original work to the list he created, or change it altogether, so it is more his own original work. He has in effect taken my original work, rearranged it & wikipedia is now calling for the eradication of my original, as Classicrockfan42 may not have liked the way I formatted the information stylistically. I personally think the American formatting lacks, because of the omission of weeks at number one. (Must all information be standardised to an American style? The Brits haven't done it) I think Classicrockfan42 could be rewarded for his work somehow by leaving it there side by side, but he needs to add something more to it to make it more of his own original work.

4)I WAS NOT CONTACTED by classicrockfan42 before he split up my original work up and a request was put in to wikipedia to remove my original work. I personally am not happy that it be changed to the inferior American formatting. Rusty201 (talk) 14:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1960s is now gone

The 1960s albums list has now dissapeared without any possibility to have put in my opinion on its removal. My vote could have saved it. Will my singles lists now suffer the same fate?

Rusty201 (talk) 14:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

links will no longer be valid

I have put some links in various articles linking weeks spent at number one to the decade lists. See links for the original text and links to album & singles lists.

Eg. Sherbet's_Greatest_Hits

"Sherbet's Greatest Hits (1970-1975) was a compilation album released on Infinity Records in Australia in 1975, at the time of the height of Sherbet's popularity in Australia. It spent 1 week at the top of the Australian album chart in 1975. It was Sherbet's first number one album in Australia and covered their single releases 1970-1975."

My_Little_Angel_(William_Shakespeare_song) "It was Shakespeare's second big hit in Australia and his first number one, making the number 1 spot in Australia for 3 weeks in early 1975."

or: Living_in_the_Seventies "Two singles were lifted from the album: "Living in the 70s"/"You're a Broken Gin Bottle, Baby" and "Horror Movie"/"Carlton (Lygon Street Blues)", the latter spending 2 weeks at the top of the Australian singles chart in 1975. "

The last two assume that someone is going to tamper with the singles lists as well.

Rusty201 (talk) 15:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, basically per Lester. I believe that it is useful to have the whole decade on a single page. I see no harm in this. Moondyne 00:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep while this is a basic list it should be part of a greater complimentary work like List of number-one albums (UK) that work would also utilise the year by year list. IMHO these lists could be reduced to album|artist|date entered charts(release date)|1st date @ #1| last date week at @ 1 | number of weeks #1|number of weeks in the charts|, rather than the weekly format With each section having a yearly summary noting any sales/time records with see also link to the full yearly for the week by week The use of "best of decade" type recordings is common and its readily conceivable that the readers will be more inclined to look to a decade article to get an over view rather than trawling through yearly articles. Gnangarra 00:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it is a choice between being broken up into years and keeping it as a decade list (if the 2 cannot co-exist side by side) I still prefer the decade option as it's less messy to wade through. Rusty201 (talk) 05:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Granted I received notification of intention to delete the pages, however, I knew nothing of the fact that a different version of the work (with weeks at #1 missing) was being done before I got these AfD messages. When I did my lists, I contacted the person whose list I updated for approval, whose approval I got. Rusty201 (talk) 05:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I'm bewildered by moves to delete this valuable resource for what seem to be pedantic reasons. Users here are telling you it's a useful resource as it is, so why tamper with it? Lyn50 (talk) 10:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per points from Lester and Moondyne, but also taking note of Gnangarra's suggestion that would alleviate one issue that I had with the space and format SatuSuro 11:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - does not satisfy any of the reasons for deletion in WP:DEL#REASON. --Scott Davis Talk 13:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The topic is encyclopedic, and the appropriateness of duplication and/or splitting of article material is a content question most appropriately discussed on the article page (or possibly the relevant project page). For what it's worth, I would certainly support recreation of the 1960s article, and I would strongly suggest to the main editor of that article that he/she request the deleting admin email copy of that text for editing and likely recreation in the future. Note that deletion is not necessarily final, as consensus can change. Debate 木 14:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was partial merge and redirect. As this amount of information is clearly overkill for the parent article, yet similar information seems to be present for other soccer players, I merged just the list of goals he scored for the national team to the parent article and then redirected. --Reinoutr (talk) 11:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Healy's International goals and caps

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
David Healy's International goals and caps (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

WP:PROD contested by a IP user with no summary at all. This article is a fork of David Healy, being only a list of all single international caps and goals of this footballer, plus a list of "missed" matches and a list of goalscorer which actually makes no sense with the article's subject. This fork is quite unnecessary and never seen in Wikipedia. Angelo (talk) 16:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy Delete per A7 by Orangemike. (non-admin closure). MrKIA11 (talk) 16:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Piece Officers

[edit]
Piece Officers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Copy of Hagfish (band), hoax. StaticGull  Talk  15:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The copied parts were removed after the nom. It probably is a real band and the creator just used the Hagfish article as a template. Anyway, it still is A7. Gunnar Hendrich (talk) 15:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Xclamation point 22:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nokia N85

[edit]
Nokia N85 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Prod added by User:Ironholds with the concern "non-notable product", and seconded by User:mikeblas (me). Both removed by User:98.207.254.158 with the comment "this is a fair stub".

The article describes a future commercial product which is non-notable and rapidly obsolesced commercial product. No claim of notability is given. As it stands, the article is blatant advertising--just a copy of a spec sheet. Because Wikipedia is not a product catalog nor a cell phone guide, I don't think this article is salvageable. Mikeblas (talk) 15:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep. John254 00:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Barnett (porn star)

[edit]
Tim Barnett (porn star) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails to meet WP:PORNBIO, Article was speedy deleted, but then restored yesterday. JoshuaD1991 (talk) 15:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Angelo (talk) 08:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paddy Madden

[edit]
Paddy Madden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Hasn't played a league game for Bohemians, only a friendly appearance against Burnley, an Ireland u-18 appearance, and some 'A' games for Bohemians, currently fails WP:ATHLETE. Sunderland06 (talk) 15:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete per CSD:G4. Stifle (talk) 12:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jenah Doucette

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

This person is not notable, this article had been deleted last December. Well, she's a third placer in America's Next Top Model, Cycle 9. She had no modeling contract after the show. --ApprenticeFan (talk) 15:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. GlassCobra 16:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantic Drive Compton Crips

[edit]
Atlantic Drive Compton Crips (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Disputed Prod. This California street gang fails WP:ORG. The article is unreferenced and a search for sources finds only blog/YouTube quality coverage. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, or more precisely "!delete". Whether or not to merge can be discussed at talk pages. Stifle (talk) 12:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Justine Musk

[edit]
Justine Musk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Nominated this as for if this was to be read to a non-science fiction person, like myself, there is nothing remarkable about this writer other than being married to some billionaire, which does not signify notability. If notability can be proved, I will be happy to reverse this nomination. Jay Pegg (talk) 15:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment, this does not help the fact that the book she has written is redlinked, hence the other reason to nominate this for AfD as well the bio is written mainly to sell books. Jay Pegg (talk) 15:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect to Elon Musk. He's pretty clearly notable, and right now there's only one sentence about his wife in his article. -206.193.226.51 (talk) 17:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect. By my reading of WP:CREATIVE, being a published author is not notable on its own right, unless that person is widely cited or covered in other sources. After wading through four pages of google results that were almost completely generated by the author herself, I couldn't find any. Therefore, merge seems most appropriate. justinfr (talk) 17:18, 22 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, Shereth 15:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - [22] shows several interviews with her, as well as reviews of her books. I believe that the book articles are just a matter of time - and based on the secondary sources, I believe that enough people feel she is notabile enough to interview, and as such, should have inclusion on Wikipedia. Turlo Lomon (talk) 15:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The publisher released "Blood Angel" in a mass-market paperback edition. As anecdotal evidence of notability, I happened to notice a large stack of "Lord of Bones" copies on the featured books table at a Barnes & Noble bookstore last Sunday. Are there quantitative measures of notability for authors, such as Amazon.com sales rankings, that could be used to assess notability? (sdsds - talk) 16:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect: Does not meet WP:CREATIVE. I would not give author interviews much weight because it is usually part of the book promotion process. I do check whether Amazon cites editorial reviews from reliable sources. A matter of time? Three years in paperback is long enough. Remember, " Notable in the sense of being 'famous', or 'popular' – although not irrelevant – is secondary." ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Speedy-deleted by User:Orangemike. Non-admin closure. DCEdwards1966 16:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ABC News (United States)

[edit]
ABC News (United States) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A duplicate of ABC News made by someone who also cut-pasted ABC News (disambiguation) into ABC News. I successfully reverted the cut-and-paste moves, but I cannot delete this article title. Georgia guy (talk) 14:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My reasoning is that the other articles on the dab page are in this format (naming convention wise) and ABC News is a more likely search term for any of the three than ABC News dis... etc would be. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you can just click on the link at ABC News to the dis-ambiguation page and then simply look it up there. Just like any dis-ambiguation page where one meaning gets no suffix for being primary. Georgia guy (talk) 15:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Or we could make it easy on people and they can go straight to the dab page and click on the one they want and it keeps the names in a reasonably similar format. Either way that isn't what this page is here for and should be kept to article talkpages. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just because someone does not know the proper procedure we don't need admin doing extra work. A simple redirect will save a few steps. GtstrickyTalk or C 15:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We do if we want to keep the edit history of the article with the article. DCEdwards1966 15:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There does seem to be some discussion on Talk:ABC News about this. Since consensus was reached there (where it should be discussed) previously I am changing. GtstrickyTalk or C 15:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MacTalk Australia

[edit]
MacTalk Australia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete. Fails WP:WEB. Do not see why this website is notable as it appears to one of the many computer talk forums found on the net. Trivial information with the article being created by and mostly being maintained by the webmasters. Violation of WP:COI. Endlessdan 14:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a matter of having a better looking article, it's a matter of meeting Wikipedia's standards of notability. Your website seems very informative, but it doesn't appear to warrant its own encyclopedia page.--Endlessdan 19:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the couple of dozen mentions of MacTalk [23] on news sites and newspapers this year and previously need to be added. --Currawong2007 (talk) 04:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Those dozen mentions are in passing or using the website in reference only. None of those articles are asserting MacTalk as notable. --Endlessdan 13:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The very first article in that search is specifically about the forum - not a trivial or passing mention. Kevin (talk) 03:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've done an initial major clean-up. Your request is entirely reasonable. --Currawong2007 (talk) 06:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fails notability per WP:CRYSTAL. May be recreated when the movie is released. Malinaccier (talk) 20:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Protection Program

[edit]
Princess Protection Program (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Forthcoming made for cable movie. Needs substantial coverage in reliable, third-party sources. None provided. I was able to find this blurb in etonline, but with virtually no content about the movie itself. Mdsummermsw (talk) 13:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep per improvements. GlassCobra 16:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Demandware

[edit]
Demandware (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

nn company Woo1000 (talk) 13:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question - Woo1000, I see that you started editing today, and all you have done is nominate articles for deletion. So far, each article I have reviewed does appears to meet the criteria for inclusion. What is the purpose of all of these AfDs? Turlo Lomon (talk) 15:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1, 2, 7 are primary source, 3, 4, 5, and 6 are the press releases. That's how it doesn't meet the criteria. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I see your point. I interpreted the articles as a newspiece about the press release, not the press release itself. However, how about adding sources like [25], [26]. Still looking. I believe the article can definitely be expanded even more. Turlo Lomon (talk) 16:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I grant you that the technewsworld thing looks okay but, the other doesn't cover the subject in a non-trivial manner and is another press release (just for a different company). Generally, anything that has the sort of ending that the findarticles thing has is a press release and not an actualy journalistic article (as they generally include the relevant information in the article and not as an addendum at the bottom.) Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know what is annoying? This LINK here. Subscribers only. Bleh! Well, I find it interesting that a detailed evaluation report was performed by a third party - at least the link shows that. I would love to see the information from that report added to the article (be it good or bad). Still looking. Lots of links out there but as you pointed out, majority are press release. Turlo Lomon (talk) 16:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John254 00:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]
Navigenics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

nn company Woo1000 (talk) 13:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, weakly. This contains at least some indicia of notability, and the service offered by the company is slightly unusual at present. I rewrote the lead sentence to describe their chief product less abstractly and evasively. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there are secondary sources. They are in the article. What is needs is a lot more in line citation for the above stuff, even if it comes from a primary source, to clarify where it came from. Based on the references, additional links should be easy to find as they mention coverage in other news sources. Turlo Lomon (talk) 15:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Weak Keep another article which is basically spam (the difference is the slightly reliable references section. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As a medical doctor working in human genetics research, I think that a wiki article about this company is important for the general public, including info about both its proposed innovation and the controversy about it. Daforerog (talk) 20:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 14:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Megaprint Inc.

[edit]
Megaprint Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

nn company Woo1000 (talk) 13:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. GlassCobra 16:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Solemio

[edit]
Solemio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

nn company Woo1000 (talk) 13:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, possible speedy delete candidate: an online dating service company with no showing of importance. Inappropriate, essayish tone and promotional style: Millions of persons already tried a web dating service and they know sometimes privacy and safety can be an issue. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree - The site has as much importance as other online dating services listed on wikipedia, namely Match.com. All facts are verifiable, including the one you indicated: Millions of persons already tried a web dating service and they know sometimes privacy and safety can be an issue. - check reference 1 http://www.articlealley.com/article_565008_39.html "It has been found from online dating statistics that around 83 millions Americans aged 19 to 45 are interested in online dating services". Nevertheless I already changed this sentence. Online dating is a recent phenomena very interesting sociologically speaking and there are few credible information about it. I know it because I've been researching it. Wikipedia should have articles on this. Since there are articles about other online dating sites, why should this be deleted? Vanessa Rôla (talk) 14:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)— Vanessa Rôla (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • WP:WAX, as noted below. If other articles with similar problems are discovered, they'll be dealt with appropriately in due time. Cliff smith talk 16:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Online dating is indeed interesting, and we even have a whole online dating page about it (with citations to read more). However, it's not a recent phenomenon (JDate started in 1997--that's even before Google!). Match.com is a valid article because it makes specific claims about the notability of that website, not the topic in general. DMacks (talk) 16:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Disagree If you had red the articles o Wikipedia I suggested, you would know they are NOT all the same site. Sapo.pt is a web portal therefore it gathers several other websites namely Sol_(jornal), which I've used as reference an is a national newspaper. Furthermore, since this discussion has started and as a prove I was willing to re-write or edit the text I've already edited and added other references. Vanessa Rôla (talk) 11:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Disagree Sorry to disagree once again but despite the fact online dating has been around for around 10 years (if you consider first online dating services), the online dating boom is quite recent. It has about 4 years which may be considered long time in "internet-time" but is rather recent to be analyzed sociologically. I recommend you http://voice.unimelb.edu.au/view.php?articleID=2143 that talks about "a rising trend" in 2005. Besides, you must have in mind although it has been popular over the USA for a while, the rest of the world discovered it later. Vanessa Rôla (talk)
  • Speedy Delete as spam. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOT SPAM for deletion there should be coherent reasons, and there are not, in fact, the decision of deleting, if taken, would only show lack of coherence, because indeed, there are articles about other dating services as well as with explicit advertisement. eg:match.com and plenty of fish... baring this in mind, this article should be a part of the Wikipedia Piccolinno (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC) — Piccolinno (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete as non-notable company/web product. There is content, it's cited, but it's all in support of the background material, not the Solemio itself. The article isn't online dating, so it doesn't matter how well cited and important that idea is in this article. The only thing saving this article from speedy-deletion is the statement about how many people use it--that's a claim of notability and it has a cite. Now whether a simple claim like "reached hundreds of thousands of users" meets our standard for websites, I don't think so (and I can't read the Portugese cite to know what it actually supports). DMacks (talk) 16:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Disagree Most of the references that were used are there to confirm the information about Solemio. I'm sorry you can't read Portuguese but the service is Portuguese and well Known in its country (which I believe makes it notable). Besides it doesn't seem fair to exclude a reference only because you don't know the language. Vanessa Rôla (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 17:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Smerdis and Jasynnash: spam. Cliff smith talk 16:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not Delete PlentyofFish was not erased, it stood as an article with the following messages: "This article needs additional citations for verification." and "This article or section is written like an advertisement.". So why can't Solemio.com also stay...and Match.com International shows the immediate way -direct link- to get to its website in each countryPiccolinno (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC) — Piccolinno (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment I believe the one questioning my intentions is you. If you think that the largest web portal of a country, a national newspaper and two research centers, amongst others, are not reliable then maybe your criteria should be reviewed. The only thing I was focused on was on expressing my opinion about this and defend why I think an article I researched for and wrote should not be deleted. I think this is the purpose of this space, to debate and share opinions. I must say I am truly disappointed. Once again there are other articles about services like this, written the same way, some with less references that did not have any problem and I had problems since day one - my first text was deleted, I've being editing it and asking for advice from wikipedeans but that seemed to be useless. Besides I regret I seemed to have bothered you so much because that was not my intention. Alongside I think it's pointless to keep trying to show the opposite of what you so strongly believe in and from this point on I would only be repeating what I have already said before. Thank you for your time. Vanessa Rôla (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 13:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK let's take the web portal out of it. We don't accept them as reliable sources and that is not about to change. As for the newspaper, Can you not link to the article on the newspaper's website? As for two research centers, Which two assert the notability of Solemio? Because I am not seeing it. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 14:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC),[reply]
    • That's is the newspaper website that is hosted on Sapo.pt server. The article was published on the newspaper and made available on online version of it. (Regarding the research centers, Pew and Jupiter, they are there to statistically confirm what I've said about online dating in general and that was questioned here before - check first comments). Vanessa Rôla (talk)
  • Delete None of the english sources listed assert the notability of Solemio, they assert the notability of Online Dating. Whether the Portuguese sources assert any notability for Solemio is hard to tell since I can't read them. But they seem to be from web portals which have been mentioned above as not reliable sources. Additionally, even if the article was notable, it needs to complete rewrite.Tobyc75 (talk) 22:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete English sources are not about subject. Portuguese sources appear to be rephrasings of the same press release (disclaimer: I don't speak Portuguese, I was using Google Translate) and don't seem to have substantive coverage of the company. Therefore, the article has insurmountable WP:V and WP:RS issues. gnfnrf (talk) 23:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • English references never intended to establish the website's notablility nor have I said that was their purpose. Regarding Google Transle, is commonly known that automatic translators often give wrong, misleading translations and are all translators nightmare. I already said for several times I was willing to edit or rewrite the text, if you think this is the case you're free do give me your input (other than telling me to read all the guidelines, which I had done in the first place). Vanessa Rôla (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay then, I'll be plain: the article needs to make specific claims about why this website is important (it's the best, most popular, first, won awards, etc.) and there need to be several independent sources that support those claims. I don't care what language they are, but if they're not English, might be a good idea to provide a good translation of a few key sentences. DMacks (talk) 21:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for your input. I'll edit the article taking into consideration your suggestions and make it available soon. Vanessa Rôla (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 08:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. BJTalk 02:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Near Infinity Corporation

[edit]
Near Infinity Corporation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

nn company Woo1000 (talk) 13:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I realize this article is only on the verge of being noteworthy since it isn't public and is small, but there are many other companies in this category such as SVM_(company) and DataSync. Near Infinity's article currently doesn't have as much content as those others, but if that's what's missing I'll work on it. I don't know how to reduce the feeling of the article being spam, but perhaps it comes back to quantity of content. And yes, I did get the category wrong I will fix that. Lprichar (talk) 19:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There are those who say that "other stuff exists" is not a good reason to keep an article. I happen to disagree; precedent and analogy are perfectly good arguments to use in these discussions, and "other stuff" seems to discount them wrongly.

But SVM (company) is involved in the consumer gift card business, and as such of some general interest. It has received notice outside of trade publications of limited circulation. As for DataSync, thanks for calling it to my attention. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Stifle (talk) 14:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revolter Inc.

[edit]
Revolter Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

nn company Woo1000 (talk) 13:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, weakly. At least this is a consumer business selling solid goods. But the online references come up 404s to me, and are mislabelled: one that's supposed to be to an "LA Times" article turns out to be at an LA Times hosted blog site, and may not be a reliable source. Article contains a stiff dose of promotional patent nonsense: . . . created for a lifestyle not accepted by the masses. Revolter Inc. uses America's constitutional rights as means to accomplish the company’s goals. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I was just at Revolter Inc. last night. Last week they had a huge articale about them in Malibu Magazine. I am one californian who is all for Revolters effort. I dont have a link to verify but i have this months Malibu Magazine and there is 3 pages about this company. Jennas1986 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC) — Jennas1986 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete Non-notable. Six (count 'em, six) hits for "Revolter Inc" on Google, none useable. Regarding the citations -- Note 1: page displays "Sorry, no record found"; Note 2: url of a blog, didn't look; Note 3: notwithstanding the url, the word Revolter does not appear in this satire; Note 4: company website, didn't look; References [sic]: who is American Heritage Collections, a furniture catalog? ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 21:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You Say You Want a Revolution: Rock Music in American Culture

[edit]
You Say You Want a Revolution: Rock Music in American Culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod (contested by author of book, who is also major contributor to page). Until very recently, this article was a platform to promote not just this book, but author and his other books. Although the book may be cited by a few other authors, it fails the notability guidelines for books. It has not received anywhere near the level of notability to justify an article. Movingboxes (talk) 13:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • All references to persons and books other than You Say You Want a Revolution bave been deleted. This article was originally created at the request of those who use the book for academic purposes. It is widely used. Rpielke (talk) 13:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What does this article add to the experience of those who are using the book for academic purposes? Can you provide sources that it is "widely used"? Note: just being cited doesn't automatically confer notability upon your book. Movingboxes (talk) 13:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep pending improvements. I recommend adding a "rescue" tag to the article and seeing if it can be improved to be more encyclopedic, less "free ad"-ish. I recognize this book and I believe it is notable enough for an article, but in its present state it's very rough. No prejudice against renomination in a few months if improvments are not made. 23skidoo (talk) 14:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Actually, Wikipedia:Notability_(books) says "how widely the book is cited by other academic publications or in the media". All the citations are noted in the article. Based on my understanding of Book specific notability - it does appear to meet the criteria. Now, I do agree the article needs serious cleanup, but that isn't a reason for deletion. Turlo Lomon (talk) 14:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment An article built entirely around citations in other works, without any media coverage, seems very WP:ORish to me. Movingboxes (talk) 04:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 United States House of Representatives elections in New York, 2008. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 15:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tracey Brooks

[edit]
Tracey Brooks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article is about an unelected politician with no notability aside from coverage about her candidacy. Whpq (talk) 12:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

oppose merege, was never elected to house no nothing to merge. RJFJR (talk) 18:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 17:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cloudism

[edit]
Cloudism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

non-notable religion עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 15:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Football Ramble

[edit]
The Football Ramble (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails to assert notability. I have been unable to find any significant coverage from reliable sources. I am posting an AFD as the authors are likely to object, as they have removed speedy deletion tags from the article. Hazel77 (talk) 12:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 under WP:CSD#G4 as a recreation, substantially identical for which changes do not address the reasons for deletion. Nothing in the new article address notability and sourcing concerns raised in the last AfD. In order to establish a new article on this topic, reliable sources will need to be located to verify notability. (See Wikipedia:Notability (web).) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arby "n" the Chief

[edit]
Arby "n" the Chief (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable machinima series made by non-notable person. No evidence of reliable independant coverage. Repeatedly deleted under a variation on the name, including at AFD. As usual, excuses are made that it's has lots of Youtube views and google hits, and coverage in forums or by involved parties. Speedy tag was removed by the article creator. Drat (Talk) 12:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete As A7, non notable web content Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know Arby "n" the Chief has been deleted before, but the views on YouTube are in the millions, the Google hits are in the thousands, the series is in part owned by Machinima.com, which does have a page on here, and Bungie itself has acknowledged the series under the sarcastic headline "Disrespectful Video Makes Outrageous Claims." (View the post here:http://www.bungie.net/Forums/posts.aspx?postID=16367582).
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. TexasAndroid (talk) 18:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clint Stanaway

[edit]
Clint Stanaway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is an article about a former journalist, with no obvious claim to notability. Grahame (talk) 11:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 10:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EivaaGames

[edit]
EivaaGames (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article has been tagged since June 2008 with notability concerns. The only references on the article are a corporate directory entry, the company's own website and what appears to be a press release or similar. I've had an extensive look and managed to find several blogs, forum posts and so on talking about the company but not a single reliable source that could be used to verify the content or show that the company is notable. Many thanks. Gazimoff 11:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reply - Thus my neutral comment. I think it should be added to the article if it passes AfD but by itself I don't think confers notability. Unfortunately, I can't review game related sites while at work - but you would thik there is more out there then this. Turlo Lomon (talk) 18:10, 28 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, MuZemike (talk) 05:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John254 00:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Embarrassing cheque

[edit]
Embarrassing cheque (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unsubstantiated trick, doesn't even seem to be an urban legend. Fails verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 11:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 14:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy Bear

[edit]
Tommy Bear (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested speedy (no reason given by IP editor who removed the tag). Pure nonsense. Movingboxes (talk) 11:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep. John254 00:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Criti Noll

[edit]
Criti Noll (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Minor character that has since been killed off. This article mostly contains copy and pasted material from the Hank Pym, and i see no reason why they need to be separated. Also the time in which Criti Noll took over as Hank Pym is in debate as the Mighty Avenger #15 issue which saw Pym get replaced did not specifically state the name of the Skrull who replaced him. It was not until Avengers: The Initiative #14 that the name Criti Noll was given and in the most recent issue of Mighty Avengers it was stated that Criti Noll was not the first Skrull to replace Pym. Paulley (talk) 09:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Because its the same information on two pages and its factually inaccurate. Wikipedia is not a guidebook to every character in the Marvel Universe. At best this page should be redirected back to Hank Pym. --- Paulley (talk) 15:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" - Everything in the article is sourced. If you are concerned about factual changes, then change them - with sources. I believe a more appropriate resolution to this would be to propose a merge on both pages, with a redirect from this one to the other. However, your original AfD indicates none of this. Turlo Lomon (talk) 15:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - Sorry i wasnt clear in the original nomination.. Obviously "Minor character that has since been killed off. This article mostly contains copy and pasted material from the Hank Pym, and i see no reason why they need to be separated." wasnt clear enough so next time i will take more care in my explanation. As for cleaning up the factual inaccuracies, that is what i have done in Hank Pym; only to realize this page had been made. You are right though, i should have gone the proposed merge route first before going to this extreme. If you would like i can retract this afd and propose a merge? --- Paulley (talk) 15:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Close - I think Paulley and I are in agreement that this should be discussed on the talk page to merge the two articles which would be more appropriate. I think this can be handled without an AfD. Turlo Lomon (talk) 15:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close - nominator has indicated that he wishes to discuss a merge instead of a delete. BOZ (talk) 18:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Let the page stay, he is a major character in the Secret Invasion storyline. Rtkat3 (talk) 3:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 10:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stan Romanek

[edit]
Stan Romanek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

As other users already stated, this entire article fails the WP policy and standards in many ways, including:

  1. Notablity (the article is written like a novel)
  2. NPOV (the article suggests the events all really accured as a matter of fact, criticism is completely missing)
  3. Advertising/Self-Promotion (subjective written - see above, 27 external links to all kinds of supporting websites)
  4. etc.

The article in its current form (as of 2008/08/21) is a complete mess and should therefore be deleted if not written in a NPOV and improved in the other points it fails the WP guidelines. I nominated it to be deleted, because this affects the entire article and not only certain parts of it.

As I have no account for the english WP, somebody sharing my thoughts should comfirm my nomination. Thank You.

--93.130.174.137 (talk) 22:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article is good, however it is an heated subject these past days. It should be reviewed and enhance. This is research work for people like myself. Please ensure that it meets Wikipedia requirements, am sure it could be done without deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparklelight1 (talk • contribs) 23:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Above text copied from talk page by ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ has nothing to declare except his jeans 09:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep All the reasons above (written like a novel, NPOV, self-promotion) are good reasons to edit the article, not to delete it. There is non-trivial coverage of Romanek's claims, and an encyclopedic NPOV article can include those without supporting them. Let's not nominate articles for deletion if all they need is to be fixed. Movingboxes (talk) 11:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is one of those articles that makes me go back and forth about ten times. The question I have is "is the event or the man notable?". I am leaning towards the event. Seems like a case of someone forcing themselves into the spotlight. Similar to those people that claim they have snorted coke with Obama. Anyway, I am leaning towards keeping something on the movie or on his claims and getting rid of the article on the person. Still on the fence for now... GtstrickyTalk or C 14:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. TexasAndroid (talk) 18:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Medal theft

[edit]
Medal theft (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

From the debate on the talk page:

Is this article really of any significance? I mean, could anyone create an article for any "noun theft" and describe it as the theft of nouns?

Or is this a industry or maybe colloquial term?

Or one could have articles on car theft, money theft, aeroplane theft, food theft, book theft etc.

is medal theft any more notable than any other crime? I don't think this article will ever be more than a stub Franny-K (talk) 14:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Above text copied over by me; AfD template placed by Franz-kafka (talk · contribs). ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ has nothing to declare except his jeans 09:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Do you really think this text can/should be expanded to present a worldwide and historical view on the subject? There have been scores of documented high-profile murder cases where medals were primary targets, but is it worth expanding at all? NVO (talk) 10:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC) PS. Franny K: Yes, car theft is notable due to sheer numbers and the fact that many jurisdictions (national criminal codes) consider it a particular type of crime, distinct from theft in general. Yes, book theft may be a subject of a text; there have been very public, high-profile cases against book thieves. NVO (talk) 10:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply I also agree that book theft would be a valid topic as well. The news has been covering the topic more and more while people are going to jail over what most would consider silly stuff (overdue library books, etc). It falls under this category. Turlo Lomon (talk) 12:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Reviewing the article and the sources, there is multiple coverage in the news specifically referring to "medal theft". This coverage covers almost a decade. There is only e unsourced statement in history of thefts, and that should be easy enough to find. The rest of it has inline citations. I feel this meets the criteria for inclusion. Needs a tad of cleanup, and could very easily be expanded. Turlo Lomon (talk) 12:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable, referenced. --Yopie 12:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 22:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marlys Edwardh

[edit]
Marlys Edwardh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

this entry has no references, was created by a sockpuppet of a blocked user and ,imho, is of questionable notability.Toyokuni3 (talk) 15:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC) Text copied from article talk page. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ has nothing to declare except his jeans 09:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. TexasAndroid (talk) 18:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JD Rudd

[edit]
JD Rudd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Appears to be vanity (created by Jdrudd2 (talk · contribs)); local fame but not really notability as Wikipedia defines it. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ has nothing to declare except his jeans 09:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 21:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gounder (title)

[edit]
Gounder (title) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article has no references and efforts made to compile them have yielded minimal uncitable references. Discussions welcome. Sudharsansn (talk · contribs) 06:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC) Text copied from article talk page. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ has nothing to declare except his jeans 09:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 10:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brodie Brazil

[edit]
Brodie Brazil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Nominated for deletion, reason: autobiography of living person, does not adhere to standards 69.236.66.74 (talk · contribs) Text moved from article talk page. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ has nothing to declare except his jeans 09:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mr.Z-man 02:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fong Siew Jean

[edit]
Fong Siew Jean (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod - no reason was given. Admittedly, some of the sources for this article might be off-limits to me due to language barriers, but to my research, this drop-out from a Malaysian reality show fails WP:BIO. Movingboxes (talk) 09:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 neologism, redirect possible. May be recreated if and when it is sufficiently and reliably sourced.  Sandstein  20:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Minority Sexual and Gender Identity

[edit]
Minority Sexual and Gender Identity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unlike LGBT, this doesn't seem to be a notable term, nor have an established meaning. Sporadic Google hits for both the plural and the singular form; since the top result is "Bradford University MSGI Society" (also conveniently linked from the article), it seems to me that this is where the term (with the meaning given in the article) was coined. (The other external link is just an article where the phrase happens to be used.) Originally proposed for deletion by me; contested by creator with a comment "Google is not everything". Delete as a neologism and since Wikipedia is not a place for promotion of newly coined terms or other ideas, or for campaigning in general. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 08:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: I feared that this might happen. I would like to point out though that although the nominator implies that Bradford MSGI made up the term MSGI, this is not the case. It was already in usage by LGBT activists the society was in regular contact with and due to a dispute over queer inclusion the issue was sidestepped by including everything, hence the name change to MSGI. Where exactly this term has come from I do not know, and I have been looking. The inclusion of the other external link was to demonstrate that MSGI is in use by other organisations independant from and unconnected to Bradford MSGI, and thus it wasn't just invented. I understand that Ghits are very low for anything beyond Bradford MSGI and Warwick Pride, but as I said above, Google is not eveyrthing, and I would appreciate some time for the widespread oral use of this word to find its way into academic literature. Dev920, who misses Jeffpw. 11:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: There exists very little reliable information on this topic, and it would be an appropriate section within other pages, such as gender identity. There is no way any one can predict whether the term will ever make its way into academic literature. Nonetheless, should it enter such literature, then the page can certainly be re-created then.
— James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 13:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete:I respect the intent of the article creator. Also, we need more editing in the Sexolgy and Sexuality area documenting and creating articles that are out of the mainstream and more along the fringes. It is unfortunate that Wikipedia is not more receptive to newly created terminology. I agree though, that this seems to be a neologism, and relatively new. Per Cantor, it can be re-created as it usage grows in academic literature. Atom (talk) 11:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and merge into LGBT. This may be too late for a rewrite but this article would likely be fine if about the concept rather than the actual term which, like Intersex is gaining worldwide acceptance even though many folks still call all LGBTIQQ people homophiles, homosexuals, queers or some other less adequate term. Banjeboi 16:05, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete very few hits on google. I know that Google is not everything, but no one is offering any better way of verifying the use of this term. This term may well deserve its own page in the future, but just now it is not notable enough for its own page. Jenafalt (talk) 19:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep. John254 00:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Redmond

[edit]
Mary Redmond (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Appears to be fake, if real not notable no sources Testmasterflex (talk) 05:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete No, it's real. Here's a source from the Dublin City Council website: 1 - see page 15, there's even a photo of the Father Mathew sculpture. Even found a photo of her tombstone 2. But is she notable? Doesn't seem like it, alas. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't want to go and immediately claim that the subject in question is not notable - just because an article is weak, it doesn't mean that there shouldn't be an article on the subject. Mr. Vernon verifies that she is indeed a real person, and that the article covers factual information. Is the statue of Father Matthew, in which is supposed to be her most famous work, particularly notable? By the looks of it, it might be to an extent - though unlikely enough for its own article. If the statue isn't notable enough for its own article, and if the sculptor hasn't really done anything significant otherwise (and both appear to be the case), I recommend deleting this article due to an apparantly general lack of notability of the subject in question. Master&Expert (talk) 06:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • And even if the statue in question IS notable enough for its own article - which I strongly doubt - then this article should be partially merged with it. Notability is not asserted through adequate sources. Master&Expert (talk) 06:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; Inadequately sourced by a vanished editor, but there is one good source inside the article "Nora J Ryder’s article in Capuchin Annual (1932)". This recent scholarly book mentions her as one of the "well-known names" who were needed to sign the 1889 A Declaration in Favour of Women's Suffrage, while there seems to be an article on her in the 1889 Irish Monthly[30] unfortunately only snippet view. The story about the drunken model gets some corroboration here. Gbooks searching on her name + sculpture / sculptor / sculptress / dublin get some bits and pieces.John Z (talk) 08:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This does not establish notability per WP:NOT Testmasterflex (talk) 04:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the Irish Monthly article on her is certainly one piece of substantial coverage. The Capuchin Annual article very likely is another; unfortunately we do not have the title. Library research would be essential to improving the article, but that is no reason for deletion. There are other Mary Redmond's out there who make the task more difficult, but this one appears to be the most notable.John Z (talk) 05:29, 27 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,  Sandstein  08:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it needs more sourcing, and given the time period in which the subject did her work, web-based sources might be hard to come by. John Z's research has turned up enough evidence that sources could be found although offline. -- Whpq (talk) 13:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 11:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Van Pojas

[edit]
Van Pojas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Game show contestant - no notability established other than this. Would appear to fail WP:BLP1E CultureDrone (talk) 07:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or, redirect per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hansen_Nichols CultureDrone (talk) 11:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John254 00:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Otto Zehm

[edit]

Otto Zehm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article is about a person tazed and killed. Notability anyone? –BuickCenturyDriver 06:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The man himself was hardly notable, but the scandal is. Rename it Otto Zehm scandal, if that's better. Or City of Spokane scandal if you must. Article needs some fixing, formatting of the refs not the least. But that this happens in an American city in the 21st century, is notable. --Hordaland (talk) 07:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we can merge this article to city of spokane. –BuickCenturyDriver 07:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP -- I definitely would not be in agreement with moving this article to Spokane Scandal or to City of Spokane or anything of the such. Look at the Rodney King article. The killing of Otto Zehm is the civic equivalent for Spokane -- the 2nd largest city in Washington State and the 4th largest metropolitan area in the Pacific Northwest -- that the Rodney King case was for Los Angeles. It has had a major impact on Spokane and politics in Spokane. Whether or not someone would "like it if it were my hometown" is irrelevant. It could certainly be called "Otto Zehm Scandal" if that was necessary. As suggested in the guidance on deletions and in an attempt to excercise good Wiki citizenship, I am hereby disclosing that I am the primary author of the Otto Zehm article. --Tayacan (talk) 06:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You serious? Spokane is a nice long article. Section Infrastructure just has health and transport. Oughta maybe be something about police & fire departments? But I wouldn't like it if it were my hometown, and neither would you... --Hordaland (talk) 12:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename The person is not notable but the incident is as it's been covered in multiple independent and reliable sources. Subsequently, the article's name should primarily describe the event. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 13:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I could move the article to Spokane Scandal if that is agreed upon. –BuickCenturyDriver 04:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep and rename The instructions associated with the deletion recommendation at the top of the Otto Zehm page indicate that the article can continue to be edited even as this discussion goes on. Does that include someone, such as me (the primary author) moving the article to a new title, such as "Otto Zehm Scandal" even as this discussion is ongoing? As I said above, I would object to it being under a generic "scandal" title such as "Spokane Scandal" because this is potentially a defining civic moment for Spokane. As an indicator see the compliation of the dozens of articles run about the death in major daily newspaper here as well as coverage outside the area and the multiple national organizations involved, not to mention the several (at least 4) local, state and federal investigations dedicated to this case alone. --Tayacan (talk) 07:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I am sorry about the multiple edits of this discussion by me. Basically I dont' know where I am supposed to write (some guidance said directly below the person I am responding to so I had to cut and paste my response into the right place or what I thought was the right place. Any thoughts, suggestions, or help is appreciated. --Tayacan (talk) 08:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Otto Zehm event is a seminal distillation of and turning point in the history of the Spokane City Police History. The law suit in process, moved forward by our city's non profit Center For Justice regarding a wrongful death will result in a decision and settlement that turns the page on open and recurring violence and discrimination against the entire "Community of Other" in our city and others. It should remain as post and be expanded as it's history proceeds. Justice For All Jcielsbleu (talk) 12:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)— Jcielsbleu (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Keep under current name. The events surrounding his death are certainly notable, and so far I haven't seen any proposed article titles that are better than just using his name. (There is also a discussion of renaming going on at Talk:Otto Zehm). I would *not* favor the name 'Otto Zehm scandal' unless the press has used that exact phrase. The article itself may need some rewriting. EdJohnston (talk) 16:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but in a huge need of a rewrite. It is far from NPOV but I think it could be improved in that regard. Mikemill (talk) 04:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. GlassCobra 15:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flags pool

[edit]
Flags pool (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod; made-up billiards game with no assertion of notability. -- Shadowlynk (Talk) 06:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was deleted (CSD G12) by Orangemike. NAC. Cliff smith talk 17:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gunton Family Tree

[edit]
Gunton Family Tree (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

One source, non-notable —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. GlassCobra 15:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Synchronous Future Internet"

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
"Synchronous Future Internet" (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Paper on the 'future of the internet.' WP:NOT PAPER and probably WP:NOTFORUM. Delete Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. TexasAndroid (talk) 18:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Canopy Glow

[edit]
Canopy Glow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Future album from a band currently without a record company. According to the article, a recent band blog posts "hints" that the search for a record company is going well. Fails WP:CRYSTAL. Movingboxes (talk) 05:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 16:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Wells

[edit]
Rob Wells (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Fail WP:BIO. The only "Rob Wells" I can find information on are the people the article says he is not. Movingboxes (talk) 05:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. TexasAndroid (talk) 18:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barterquest

[edit]
Barterquest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Reads like a listing on a download site. {{notability}} Josh3580HG / AWBuser / talk / hist 04:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. BJTalk 02:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This Is A Heavy Product

[edit]
This Is A Heavy Product (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No evidence of notabilty, article largely full of speculation and opinion Deiz talk 04:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. TexasAndroid (talk) 18:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Catch-99

[edit]
Catch-99 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable neologism - apparently mentioned in one book of fiction, no ghits. WP:NEO. Mr. Vernon (talk) 04:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This issue isn't the references, it's the fact that it is a non-notable neologism that has apparently only been used within a single novel. Movingboxes (talk) 04:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, neologism. GlassCobra 15:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kentucky paté

[edit]
Kentucky paté (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Contested speedy (editor gave no reason for removing the tag). Unsourced local food slang with no assertion of notability. Movingboxes (talk) 04:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I vote delete, doesn't really seem to give any actual info, sounds like simple foolishitude. --Josh3580HG / AWBuser / talk / hist 04:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

lol, I remember seeing it was in the http://pottedmeatmuseum.org/, but the site is down for a refresh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reynoldtompkins (talk • contribs) 04:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines Davewild (talk) 18:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ILL Harmonics

[edit]
ILL Harmonics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Band appears to fail WP:MUSIC. Unable to find non-trivial coverage or even an independent listing of band members names (this is somewhat important, as there was have been editors changing names of band members). They are currently signed to an indie label, but it is not a major label and the label now appear to be semi-defunct. Movingboxes (talk) 04:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 15:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Order (Silent Hill)

[edit]
The Order (Silent Hill) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

There are no reliable third-party references to support this article, and thus the article does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Article only uses primary sources. Exploring for sources only reveals unreliable self-published sources, or trivial mentions of the subject that cannot allow us to verify anything substantive in the article's contents. Randomran (talk) 04:17, 28 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, MuZemike (talk) 05:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Lack of reliable secondary sources is fatal. No prejudice against redirect and will userify on request for a prospective merge. — Coren (talk) 02:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Odessa (Wild Arms 2)

[edit]
Odessa (Wild Arms 2) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

There are no reliable third-party references to support this article, and thus the article does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. No sources in the article whatsoever. Google has a few hits, but they are either unreliable self-published sources, or trivial mentions of the subject that cannot allow us to verify the article's massive contents. Randomran (talk) 04:07, 28 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, MuZemike (talk) 05:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless verifiable, third-party sources can be found to satisty WP:GNG for every object. Remember, Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. MuZemike (talk) 05:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect: Deletion sounds like the appropriate response, but I think redirecting it to List of Wild Arms 2 characters is a reasonable compromise. However, should the article pop up again in a similar format—with no references and too many non-free images—then deletion sounds like the best course. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete - Unsourced by independent references (WP:V), no assertion of notability has been made (WP:N), fails our writing about fiction guidelines (WP:WAF) with respect to out-of-universe context. Marasmusine (talk) 17:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article does not indicate any real-world significance of this fictional element. It also appears to be original research based on primary source material. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't cite reliable, independent sources, as required by WP:GNG. Protonk (talk) 19:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • So, are all five of you the same person using different accounts or is it just a coincidence that I sense the same air of robotic, thoughtless personalities from those replies? Someone just end this so I can merge the article without being nagged at by template messages on my talk page. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 21:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please read WP:CIVIL. MuZemike (talk) 21:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sigh. We all happen to have the relatively widely held opinion that articles need to have at least "some" secondary sourcing. It isn't thoughtless, but it is a little robotic. After the 400th time you say it, you still...have to say it. Articles will continue to be created that are outside the community's desired goals and we will continue to have these discussions. Protonk (talk) 22:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I never objected to the article's deletion, it just really irks me that when something's been said so many times by so many other people already in the exact same manner, they could at least have the decency to change their wording and/or offer an actual, constructive opinion on the subject in question instead of slapping it with a copy/pasted comment from a dozen other unrelated discussions. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 01:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • It isn't copied and pasted. The article doesn't cite a single source. We require that it cite several. there aren't too many different ways to show that, and after the 50th time of saying it, you run out of interest in changing it just to be clever. If the situation were different from most other times, what I write would be different. If something is repeated AfD to AfD without regard for how it actually relates to the discussion at hand, that is copy/pasted. In this case, these people are chiming in so that we don't somehow mistake the discussion here as "no consensus". And as for the "constructive opinion", what constructive opinion would you have me offer about this article? Protonk (talk) 01:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Plot summary and in-universe detail with no real-world information. Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject indicates that this topic is non-notable. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 01:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:JNN is never a valid reason for deletion. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Technically it is if there is a lack of reliable independent sources. Just to clarify, I'm still in favor of a selective merge and redirect. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]
      • Doctorfluffy did not invoke WP:JNN. He was verbose, as that essay suggests one should be. Marasmusine (talk) 17:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • You can sum that edit up as essentially arguing the subjective "not notable," when it is obviously notable to those who created, worked on, and read the article, i.e. people who leave in the real world. Given the RfC over notability that shows a total lack of consensus when it comes to fictional notability and spinoff articles, it seems questionable. A simple Google search suggests that it can be verified as well in reviews of the game, which means coverage in independent sources. Now what is and is not "significant" is something that is again subjective as argued as demonstrated by the lack of consensus in the RfC on notability an other similar discussions. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • You can sum that edit as "not notable", but that would ignore the reasoning listed for that statement.
            And while notability is subjective to an extent, Wikipedia is concerned with the notability demonstrated by the existence of reliable and independent sources making note of topic. Unfortunately, our perception of notability as editors and readers is not part of the equation at WP:N.
            I would also like to point out that the number of google results is misleading as most link to website user reviews, product listings, and pages for other uses of "odessa". (Guyinblack25 talk 17:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]
            • Feh, Wikipedia's concept of "it may be relevant to the interests of many people and is an important sub-topic of a major subject, but it's not actually notable enough to be read on our nonscholarly internet quick reference site unless an irrelevant fanboy writer on IGN says something about it" notability is pretty asinine. It's somewhat pointless to discuss that here though anyway since this is really a MoS-related deletion and not a notablity one, seeing as the core information's notable enough to be kept but it's pointless to have its own article(this article was actually made more than a year before the main character list IIRC). Someone end this already. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 01:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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/keep. Close voting numerically, but article clearly has potential. Organization has played a large role in several games of the Sonic franchise, which has massive notability. Questions of trimming article content should be taken up on the talk page. GlassCobra 15:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guardian Units of Nations

[edit]
Guardian Units of Nations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

There are no reliable third-party references to support this article, and thus the article does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Existing sources are either primary sources, or unreliable sources. Google has a few hits, but they are either unreliable self-published sources, or trivial mentions of the subject that cannot allow us to verify the article's contents. Randomran (talk) 03:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. I think it's clear that this is not ready for WP.--Kubigula (talk) 04:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Cheesy Ragu

[edit]
The Cheesy Ragu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Zero ghits for "Cheesy Rago" and "Facebook". Hoax. Delete Mr. Vernon (talk) 03:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just speedy it, it's nonsense... — NovaDog — (contribs) 04:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article was created to keep people informed and spread what is widely considered a game to Facebookers. This article is neither a "hoax" or "nonsense" and should not be placed for deletion.Funkaxe99 (talk) 00:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any proof that this is a game? I get zero ghits for "cheesy ragu" site:facebook.com or "cheesy ragu" game. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 04:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep.  Sandstein  20:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Uninhabited Planet Survive episodes

[edit]
List of Uninhabited Planet Survive episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Directory of unnotable fancruft of episodes. It is an indiscriminate list as the whole list doesn't say anything but give the name of the episode in Japanese and the air date. Tavix (talk) 03:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mr.Z-man 02:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One World Flag

[edit]
One World Flag (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This gets a number of ghits, but I haven't found anything that meets WP:V and it doesn't seem, therefore, that this meets WP:N. (Note article is obviously not NPOV.) Mr. Vernon (talk) 03:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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), Bold NAC. Each article here has been merged into List of spacecraft from the Space Odyssey series, and the refs have been cleaned up. No notability problem now. Protonk (talk) 02:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leonov (fictional spacecraft)

[edit]
Leonov (fictional spacecraft) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable vehicle from the 2001: A Space Odyssey series. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

Orion III spaceplane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Aries Ib (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Space Station V (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Moonbus (2001 A Space Odyssey) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
EVA Pod (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John254 00:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Leaving Trains

[edit]
The Leaving Trains (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Arguably not speedy, but the claim to notability is very much borderline. Independent band published under an independent label only, but with a fair number of records. As it stands, the article falls short of WP:BAND, and has a single blog source; but someone with more pointed topic knowledge might be able to salvage it.

Disclaimer: I have speedied, then restored the article after another admin had done the same leaving the tag on. — Coren (talk) 03:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Satori Son 18:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rhíannon Thomas

[edit]
Rhíannon Thomas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable. Unreferenced. Article deleted (prod) already and recreated. Kleinzach 02:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Her MySpace page and personal website, or other independent media references? --Kleinzach 09:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.myspace.com/rhiannonsinger
That's still a myspace link, so not a reliable source. If it does get deleted and you recreate it, it will almost certainly be speedily deleted under WP:CSD G4....GbT/c 18:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. All the information on the page, starting with the boldface name at the beginning, appears to be a hoax unverifiable. The Niamh O'Brien who bills herself as Rhíannon (i.e., the subject of the official website linked under "References") is Irish, not Welsh, with acting credits utterly different from what's described in the article, and I see no evidence that she's ever lived in Mexico or the United States. The Rhiannon whose MySpace page is linked under "External links" is a completely unrelated woman in Catonsville, Maryland. Googling for "Rhíannon Thomas" turns up various people of that name, but none that appear to be the person described in the article. The whole thing fails WP:V, and I think it's a borderline G3 speedy as pure vandalism. Deor (talk) 23:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I've refactored my comments above to tone them down a little. Deor (talk) 16:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. This case has been confusing - hence my wrong assumption about authorship - but anyway we're making progress here. Regards. --Kleinzach 23:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of interest, here's an independent media source. Enjoy.--Andrzejestrować ZP Pbjornovich (talk) (contributions) (email) 09:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, this article's been copied and pasted! Look here!--Andrzejestrować ZP Pbjornovich (talk) (contributions) (email) 09:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you're referring to the two external links you added to the article, the IMDB page is for musician (a cellist, apparently) in St. Johns, Newfoundland, and there's no evidence that she's the person described in this article. The second is a site that just copies WP articles, and I've accordingly deleted the link. Deor (talk) 10:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep. John254 00:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of historical criminals of New York City

[edit]
List of historical criminals of New York City (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article has absolutely no references, and the links to people are linked to the wrong people in some cases. I think this whole article should just be deleted. Chexmix53 (talk) 02:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 03:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 03:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 03:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, get sources & cleanup. This is a potentially useful list in that New York has a long history of crime and a lot of notorious/notable criminals, and having a reference that ties them to their gangs and eras, if this fulfilled that promise, would be quite helpful. --Dhartung | Talk 07:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I'd question whether each of the criminals on the list will ultimately be deserving of a separate article, in which case their inclusion may need a reference. The title is also rather vague: any otherwise notable person who lived in New York City and committed a crime there would seem to be a potential member: list of 19th century New York gangs might work better. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are a sufficient number of notable entries in this list and thus in my opinion the article itself should stay. The red-linked entries should be sourced or removed. Overall the list would be improved if entries has a short description of the person's criminal noterity. Chexmix53--the links to people are linked to the wrong people in some cases isn't a valid reason for deletion. If inccorrect linking was a reason for deletion, most the articles I've worked on would have already been deleted. If the link is wrong--FIX it--Mike Cline (talk) 17:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lose That was not my only reason to delete the article. It is just a list of names without any references or descriptions that a lot of the links go to the wrong people. This article has been up for over a year and the person that started it has obviously abandoned it and not one else has taken up the cause. The only edits I see to it are people backtracking links from other pages and realizing that it is incorrectly linked. The article is just a list, with no references and incorrect with potentially libelous information in it. Chexmix53 (talk) 18:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Your reasons for deletion are: 1) The article hasn't had much attention for a year (I can't find the WP:NOATTENTIONFORAYEAR guideline), 2) The article is just a list - seems to me that WP:LISTS pretty much says that's OK in WP, 3) No References - I agree that the non-wikipedia articled entries should be sourced or deleted, but I am not aware of any guideline thats say an entire list must be sourced, especially if it is a list of already notable WP articles. 4) incorrect with potentially libelous... is either POV on your part or if you are factually aware of incorrect entries--delete them and explain why on the talk page.--Mike Cline (talk) 19:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No legitimate reason for deletion has been advanced. If the article is in bad shape and needs to be fixed, the correct response is to fix it, not to delete it. Also provides a valuable source of redlinks, which indicate absent articles that Wikipedia may need. -- Dominus (talk) 19:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Lose If everyone is ok with a list with over 200 people on it being labeled a criminal without any reference, when it has already been pointed out that many of the entries are incorrect, then I'm done with wikipedia. We are not listing schools in a school district, we are listing hundreds of people and accusing them of being criminals under the guise of an encyclopedia article without any description or reference. That is libel. My point with it being over a year is that the author abandoned it and it has been sitting here for over a year with all these accusations and no backup and no one has picked up the chore of fixing it. I am not going to fix it because I don't think it should even be an article. WP:LISTS is fine for listing malls in a state or things like that but not making a list of criminals from New York, when there is no reference for it. And yes, every time a name is added to the list, and that person is being accused of being a criminal, it should have to have a reference. The name Johnny Thompson is on there and that links to one of the nicest people in the world (who i personally know, and know he has no ties to criminals in New York). That is completely ridiculous. The best part is that this is going to be voted to keep and it will sit here for another year without anyone fixing it. Keep it, it's just another blow to the democracy of fact that is wikipedia. Chexmix53 (talk) 20:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please explain what "Lose" means in this context? Is it intended as a suggestion that Wikipiedia whould lose the article, or that I am a loser, or that my argument is an ultimately losing one for the Wikipedia project, or something else? -- Dominus (talk) 20:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have stuck Chexmix53's second !vote. Please only !vote once. Edward321 (talk) 23:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The claim "without any reference" is incorrect. There are many references. To name just one example, the article on Louis Pioggi cites New York Times articles from 1908 and 1915, one titled "Louis Poggi Surrenders, Gangster Who Jumped Bail in 1912 to Get Lighter Sentence". How can you seriously claim that there is no reference for labeling any of these people criminals? -- Dominus (talk) 13:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Paul Graham. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 15:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blub (programming)

[edit]
Blub (programming) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not important or notable, sufficiently covered by Paul Graham page. Zeppomedio (talk) 01:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 15:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Gilbert

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

Non-notable candidate for the Florida House of Representatives. As seen in this article, Ryan Gilbert lost the election by 14,000 votes. As for him being one of the "youngest people to run for the state legislature," I doubt that that confers notability. The rest of the news articles I found in doing this Google search were about a baseball player. Cunard (talk) 01:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Speedy Keep (non-admin closure) Leonard(Bloom) 05:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Adventures of Brer Rabbit

[edit]
The Adventures of Brer Rabbit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I can't find any reliable sources that show the movie's notability. Schuym1 (talk) 01:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep since it was nominated for a Annie Award and has some notable names to it (Danny Glover, Wayne Brady). I agree it does not meat the WP:NF guidelines but I tend to give more leeway to children's animation films since the tend to not get the press of an full length, blockbuster, theater released, adult oriented movie. Lets face it there are not a lot of critics that like to go out and bash little kids favorite Disney movie. GtstrickyTalk or C 01:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Universal is a major studio so probably good to give this one the benefit of the doubt. People checking out the actors' careers will probably be interested. Northwestgnome (talk) 02:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Schuym1 has something of a point... Only 2 reviews on MRQE (neither apparently major), Rotten Tomatoes apparently has nothing in reviews, IMdB lists nothing in reviews, and while it lists major talents as voices I doubt that this film is a major part of any of their careers. So there isn't any of the documentation I can find easily that would be in line with Notability guideline for films. Maybe this is a time for a common sense exception, but considering that the article has been around for 2 years, it seems like there's been plenty of time to find sources and improve (were it a priority for anyone.) Wouldn't really care if it were kept, though. LaughingVulcan 02:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If anyone had bothered Googling, ("The Adventures of Brer Rabbit" 2006) the first page contains a New York Times Review (which also appears other places) and an UPI blurb. Google News shows it's been mentioned in articles about D.L. Hughley, Wanda Sykes, and Wayne Brady. Google books lists two mentions that appear to reference this particular film. I also found an confirmation for the Annie. Jclemens (talk) 03:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you would be so good, then, as to edit the Article and include those voluminous citations in a way that supports WP:MOVIE. As when I called up your apparent NYT reference [33], I discovered a cover blurb lifted from the "All Movies Guide," not a NYT movie review. AMG, AFAIK, is not a reliable source which confers Notability. Indeed, it appears to me to be a very trivial reference, even if it is on the New York Times website. And I further wonder how many of the other voluminous references you found are of similar quality. Futher, "Nominations," aren't major awards per WP:MOVIE. Or maybe you'd like to detail some of the other references yourself in the article, lest someone think this is a perfect example of a Google test. LaughingVulcan 00:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that was the nominators responsibility per WP:ATD and WP:BEFORE. Often I do it despite it being someone else's responsibility, but in this case, I choose to allow someone else the privilege. The evidence will remain here, linked from the talk page, as long as the article is kept--which it appears to be WP:SNOWing towards. Jclemens (talk) 01:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have to do anything. I did search for sources. I don't need to post sources, that I didn't find, on an article that I don't care about. Schuym1 (talk) 01:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While no one "has to" do anything--this is still a volunteer project--the community's expectations of AfD nominators are listed at WP:BEFORE. I posted my specific google search string so that others can review my findings firsthand, but also so that everyone who comes across this AfD can see how to effectively construct a search string so that relevant web references will rise to the top whenever needed in the future. We're all learning as we go here. Jclemens (talk) 03:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. GlassCobra 15:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mad fun

[edit]
Mad fun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Clearly not notable Mblumber (talk) 01:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, Mad Fun is not very popular, more like a CT based venture, if you looked it up on google, i doubt you would find anything besides 3rd-tier fan sites that are very rare. You can delete it I guess, but I thought it would be a nice addition to the ever growing wikipedia library. say if someone heard of the comic series in a forum or something they could look it up on wikipedia and know what was being talked about like I do with most concepts or topics that I am not familiar with. The best thing about wikipedia for me was the user-created pages and the ability to learn about anything. I thank you for reading this and sorry for rambling. But I hope you will reconsider

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mad_fun"

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  20:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Jackson controversies

[edit]
Michael Jackson controversies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)


Delete as unnecessary and excessive: It basically acts as a disambigious page to list all of Mr. Jackson's controversies. Wikipedia has 4 articles dedicated to his issues. While Jackson has seen his fair share of controversy, a disambiguate page is a little OTT. Furthermore I have fixed up the Michael Jackson template so that it dedicates a section to the controversies, providing easy access to them. His controversies can easily be accessed from the template. I have the template on my watchlist so it won't be white washed. I have provided the template for transparency.

— Realist2 00:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems like possible a WP:FORK. If anywhere the info should be in the Michael Jackson article. If it was contained there a redirect would seem fine. Hmmm that sounds like a merge to me. GtstrickyTalk or C 01:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The 4 controversies are all dealt with neutrally in the Michael Jackson article, avoiding undue weight in the biography. These controversies are then expanded upon on their own pages. The question is, do we really need this disambigious page to help people find the articles on his controversies? The answer is no. — Realist2 02:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List of Heroes episodes. Stifle (talk) 11:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Angels and Monsters

[edit]
Angels and Monsters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The sole source of this article is a blog, which in turn uses a single Flickr image (supposedly form the show's creator, but unverifiable) as its source. Verifiable nor reliable whatsoever. — Edokter • Talk • 00:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mr.Z-man 02:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chesham Mosque

[edit]
Chesham Mosque (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested PROD. Non-notable place of worship. According to this article (which is unreferenced and also of dubious notability) the mosque's name is "Central Jamia Mosque". A search on this exact name with Chesham returns 18 unique google hits. One notes that this place of worship does not meet the proposed policy on places of worship. roleplayer 00:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. GlassCobra 15:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Burning Down The House (2000)

[edit]
Burning Down The House (2000) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Completely non-notable pilot episode of a production that never was. One en passant mention in an interview does not a reliable source make. Prod was removed by author without addressing concerns; this article appears to be one of many added by an overzealous fan.  ;-)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 11:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Come on Home (Bethany Joy Galeotti album)

[edit]
Come on Home (Bethany Joy Galeotti album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:MUSIC, no critical reviews/reception or other real world context. Completely lacking in reliable sources (no, myspace is not reliable), the article mostly serves as a coatrack for information about an otherwise non-notable tour. Appears to be part of a series of articles created by an overzealous fan.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 due to duplicate nominations (non-admin closure), Edit conflict resulted in two simultaneous nominations; discussion to go to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drake and Josh (videogame) (2nd nomination). Ros0709 (talk) 22:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Drake and Josh (videogame)

[edit]
Drake and Josh (videogame) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Notability concerns - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. PhilKnight (talk) 22:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2008_August_28&oldid=1081103116"