Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 September 16

< September 15	September 17 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Booty Musick

Contested PROD: completely unsourced article on an unreleased single from an unreleased album, fails WP:MUSIC. Article has already been renamed from "Booty Call" to "Booty Musick", which makes it hard to be confident in the accuracy of the crystal ball. Stormie (talk) 23:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Stormie (talk) 23:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even without crystal-ballery and with sources, this article would surely still fail WP:MUSIC, since its subject is an uncharted single. AndyJones (talk) 12:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per above. Ravenswing 16:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, well-established consensus that these aren't notable. Stifle (talk) 18:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSIC#Songs. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 20:25, 17 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 (non-admin closure). No consensus to delete has been reached. The subject probably has some marginal notability. However the merge to Eugene Mallove is not unreasonable. Ruslik (talk) 14:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Infinite Energy (magazine)

This is not a notable magazine. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment how d'ya figure? Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 23:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very Weak keep around since 95 which gives some presumption of continuing importance dor a publication devoted to cold fusion. Not a sufficient criterion by itself, though. DGG (talk) 23:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting point. However, I'll argue that all its notability is due to its creator Eugene Mallove being notable. However, I don't think that the notability of a creator necessarily rubs off on the creation. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I created this article, so obviously I like it. It's a real magazine that is produced by real people, read by real people, has real ads. It has been around more than a decade, and has survived the death of its founder. I don't see why the heck it doesn't deserve an article; can you be more specific aside from you don't think it's notable?. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 00:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability generally means it needs to have outside press, awards, notice in third-party publications, or large circulation. I don't see any of these things associated with this particular magazine. While I have no doubt it has "real readers", "real ads", etc., I also don't think that there is sufficient independent coverage and notice of this magazine for us to be able to write a reliably sourced article on the magazine itself. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An energy-rich Keep It appears this magazine has been the focus of a high quantity of media coverage: [1]. Ecoleetage (talk) 03:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources, no assertion of notability. Dlabtot (talk) 05:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Having looked at Ecoleetage's link. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 07:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If a magazine of this profile was promoting mainstream ideas, nobody would be querying its inclusion. If most of the magazine's content is regarded by most physicists as mistaken, it is sufficient for the article to say so. Wikipedia's purpose is to inform its users, presuming them to be intelligent, not to suppress viewpoints its editors don't like. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 10:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Take for example the article on The Skeptic (UK magazine). No citations from reliable sources, evidence of notability etc. etc, but nobody has proposed it for deletion. Is there a double standard in operation here? SamuelTheGhost (talk) 10:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If another article seemingly fails to meet our notability criteria, go and help the project out by nominating it for deletion. You can't use the existence (or lack thereof) of other random articles to address the concerns levelled at this one. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't a "random" article; it's closely comparable. I advocate keeping both; both are just stubs. WP:OSE supports the use of comparisons in such cases; I'm trying to prompt people into examining their criteria here. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 11:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Eugene Mallove. Whatever notability the magazine has, it seems to be almost completely bound up in the notability and prominence in the CF community of its creator. Nothing that I find seems to satisfy, but I would be convinced to keep by some almost-but-not-quite trivial coverage independent of Mallove. - Eldereft (cont.) 17:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only drawback with that idea is that Mallove is dead and the magazine isn't. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 21:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True, but none of the references I found treated the magazine as other than 'this thing Mallove also does'. Without any depth of coverage, there is nothing for an article to say. Is there any evidence that the magazine has done anything notable either before or after Mallove's death? It is certainly prominent to his life, but I have not found any references indicating that it should be treated separately from its creator. - Eldereft (cont.) 03:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The lack of citations from reliable sources in this article leads me to conclude that the article is not in compliance with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 18:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Eugene Mallove with no prejudice on a re-split if secondary sources are later uncovered which establish sufficient notability for a standalone article. As-is, there's insufficient material here to warrant keeping it separate, and no secondary sources have yet been added which would vouch for its independent notability from Mallove. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All Barnes and Nobles bookstores carry the magazine, so it has significant readership or B&N would not handle it, it is always right there in their Science section. The magazine has published numerous articles by PhD Astrophysicists denouncing the big bang theory, and I'm sure this angers many in the big bang industry, which I believe is why some want it deleted. Notice that Science Apologist himself defends the big bang theory on the big bang discussion page, which explains why he dislikes Infinite Energy Magazine. 72.186.213.96 (talk) 03:52, 20 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. Not quite a keep, but close. Chart success suggests it meets the WP:MUSIC guidelines. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere and Everywhere

Unnotable album by an unnotable (or barely notable) artist that fails WP:N and WP:MUSIC. No significant coverage of this album and it has won no awards. Prod contested with "rm prod. notable artist" however per the guidelines, any notability of the artist (which is contested) does not automatically make all of her albums notable. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:MUSIC#Songs as a charting song [2], [3]. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 05:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a charting single --T-rex 18:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 23:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to little Leviathan. Stifle (talk) 18:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete (or merge to Little Leviathan) While it almost came within spitting distance of the Hot 100, it didn't quite make it. And grazing the Adult Top 40 (1 week at #40) does not seem significant to me, either. It's not a strict interpretation of WP:MUSIC#Songs but that's what I've decided. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony}
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:12, 18 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 (non-admin closure), as notability is confirmed. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:09, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Little Leviathan

Unnotable album by an unnotable (or barely notable) artist that fails WP:MUSIC. Prod contested with "rm prod. album includes charted single." however a single barely charted single does NOT make the album notable (and said single already has its own article as well. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, has charting song, and has independent coverage from a reliable source per WP:MUSIC#Albums, [4] in the form of the Allmusic review. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 05:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found a Washington Post article featuring the album too [5]. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - album includes song that charted --T-rex 18:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've added in 2 references to the Billboard charts. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 23:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 23:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, valid, charting album. Stifle (talk) 18:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Esradekan Gibb. Europe22 (talk) 19:26, 19 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 redirect to Michelle Lewis. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 05:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Letters Out Loud

Unnotable album by an unnotable (or barely notable) artist that fails WP:N and WP:MUSIC. No significant coverage of this album and it has won no awards. Prod contested with "rm prod. notable artist" however per the guidelines, any notability of the artist (which is contested) does not automatically make all of her albums notable. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Michelle Lewis per WP:MUSIC#Albums. Lacks independent coverage in reliable sources. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 05:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 22:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Esradekan. Stifle (talk) 18:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:13, 18 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 23:04, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AIFL Ghostchasers

This is an article on an indoor football league team that never won anything; there's no real evidence that the AIFL is particularly significant to start with, and this team appears to be actively insignificant. The article lacks any non-trivial independent sources and none of the 72 unique Google hits looks like remedying that. Guy (Help!) 22:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as defunct. Stifle (talk) 13:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Were a professional sports franchise. Patken4 (talk) 13:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'll not formally !vote here since I am neutral on the issue, but I do like "actively insignificant". That's rather brilliant -:). Nsk92 (talk) 13:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject American football's list of football related deletions. Patken4 (talk) 19:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insignificant, and I doubt that it meets notability standards. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 20:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Being defunct is not relevant to notability. Duffbeerforme (talk) 13:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Being defunct is absolutely relevant to notability. 1) It establishes that the venture was not successful enough to persist. 2) It establishes that any entry in the group is not going to expand its profile. 3) It means that all "current events" searches are out of the question. 4) It means that it needs to have a strong "what links here" list to justify the idea that this entity is part of history and claims historical significance. There is no justification presented for the importance of this organization. I'm sure it had local fans and local importance, but encyclopedias are for beyond the local. Utgard Loki (talk) 17:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge somewhere Although when it's gone, whether deleted or merged, this stub of an article won't be missed. Did it have any of the same players from the team it replaced (or chased), the "Ghostriders"? Are there any interesting articles about this hapless team? It rates a mention in the AIFL article or in the article about the team it replaced, the Carolina Ghostchasers. My own opinion is that the AIFL is a bush league for a bush league version of pro football, and that its teams don't rate their own individual articles. Mandsford (talk) 20:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Carolina Ghostriders since they were essentially a shadow road team used to fill out the schedule after the Ghostriders gave up the ghost (so to speak). -- Whpq (talk) 15:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite 23:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is verifiable WP:V that the ghostchasers where professional football team [6]. ccwaters (talk) 23:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep due to precedent. Non-fans of American football should be aware, for purposes of this discussion, that millions of Americans who live and die with the National Football League would not recognize the AIFL if all of the league's players were standing outside on their doorstep. Nevertheless, we do have articles about the league's other teams. While I originally would have preferred to merge to Carolina Ghostriders, the team that the Ghostchasers replaced for part of one season, the league declared that the Ghostchasers were not a continuation of the Ghostriders and would be listed separately in the standings. [7] Since the Ghostchasers played only road games, they would have had no home town from which to garner fans or local media coverage. Apparently they never won a game, and in fact they lost one of their games 104-0. [8] So I'm not too enthusiastic about recommending "keep" for this article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Carolina Ghostriders. The league's declaration notwithstanding, the "Ghostchasers" had the same players and occupied the same dates and teams in the schedule as the Ghostriders. Ravenswing 16:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- From what I can tell, not entirely; the Ghostriders' home games were cancelled altogether and the Ghostchasers only played what would have been the Ghostriders' road games. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:00, 18 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 redirect to Frogdice. Black Kite 20:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Hartman

Fails WP:BIO, specifically:

General criterion: the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject- zero news ghits for "Michael Hartman" Frogdice, 23 ghits for "Michael Hartman" Frogdice -wikipedia, and 149 ghits for "Michael Hartman" threshold -wikipedia. There just isn't a whole lot talking about this guy out there, and even less of it independent of him.
The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them- No evidence of this can be found- while Threshold (online game) may have awards, he does not (see WP:NOTINHERITED).
The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field. No evidence of meeting this can be found.

Additionally, the article fails WP:NOR and WP:V. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Although its true I am not an expert in this subject, the reason for failure to meet BIO given are wrong: ghits is not a reason for deletion, an award for a game someone wrote is an award to the person in all reasonable senses, and a contribution to major games is an enduring contribution. A more general problem, is the odd assertion that one article must meet every possible part of the bio factors. I do not see the claimed OR.)DGG (talk) 18:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

based on the information below, it would seem the best course is to merge with the article for the company. DGG (talk) 01:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Response Sorry, I'll be more specific. I didn't mean ghits as a criterion for deletion, rather as a suggestion that there can't be any assumed notability as there appears to be no "published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject". Taking the time to look at the results for 23 ghits for "Michael Hartman" Frogdice -wikipedia, for example, there are no items that meet WP:RS. The original research here is especially evident in the last two paragraphs of the current article, speaking of the subject's influences and his notoriety in online gaming circles. These are completely unattributed and unattributable. And as to the award, I'd like to remark that they're of indeterminate notability; in the Threshold (online game) article, the "award" from TopMudSites.com appears to only be its ranking based on total users, while the awards from The Mud Journal evidently cannot be verified as their site has long disappeared and is not in The Internet Archive; failing WP:V. As to the Computer Games Magazine mention, there's no reference to back it up, so we can't even establish the significance of the mention for either the game or for this subject. I'm not asserting he needs meet every criterion, rather that he fails every one. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

unattrib uted is one thing, unattributable another.

Well, in all fairness, I checked LexisNexis, EBSCO and generally searched around the 'net for info on man or MUD, but turned up precious little data in reliable sources, none of which confirmed the award-winning status of either. While "unattributable" is a rather absolute term, I don't mean to use it lightly. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing any significant coverage in reliable sources. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite 22:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Frogdice as he is not notable aside from his involvement with that company. Stifle (talk) 18:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Couldn't find any significant coverage in reliable sources. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:20, 21 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. (default to keep). WP:CSB applies as well - she does appear to have acted in notable films - there's a lot of coverage out there. Black Kite 20:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saranya Mohan

Reads like an advert. In addition, may not be notable: Only two movies, both of which were Tamil-language films that did not reach a huge audience. Opinions? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 01:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- The problems with this article are that it's slightly non-neutral in tone, and unsourced. I've toned down most of the more effusive praise. As for sourcing, there's a great many Google hits, many of which appear to be reliable secondary sources. I'm not too familiar with India or entertainment-related issues so I can't judge which ones are sound sources but I'm 99% confident some of them are. Reyk _YO! 13:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question I cant judge this topic, but since when are "huge" audiences necessary for notability? DGG (talk) 19:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 22:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The lack of citations from reliable sources in this article leads me to conclude that the article is not in compliance with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 18:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's harder to find sources for subjects from countries that aren't quite so wired. However, a google news search[9] gets several hits, some of which look usable. So, no clear indication that she meets WP:BIO, but, given the inherent challenges, I see this as sufficient evidence that she's a notable Tamal actress.--Kubigula (talk) 15:20, 21 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 (non-admin closure), as notability is confirmed. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Connect.com.au

Article makes a few big claims about notability but has no reliable sources to back up the claims. The article also reads like an advertisement. Bidgee (talk) 00:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Bidgee (talk) 00:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this ISP was the sole registrar for the .net.au domain name for many years, among many other achievements. Notable IMHO. The article requires expansion, not deletion. -- Longhair\^talk 06:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 21:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Definitely noteworthy. Played an important historic role in being one of the first internet service providers in Australia. Was known at the time as one of the "Big Four" ISPs. References are reliable.--Lester 02:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, seems notable enough. Stifle (talk) 18:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - played a historical role in the internet in Australia.--Takver (talk) 12:25, 19 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Hecker

Non-notable person; article fails to explain or reference any notability. None of the claimed achievements qualifies for notability. Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:23, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The lack of citations from reliable sources in this article leads me to conclude that the article is not in compliance with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 18:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - IMDB confirms he is a working director, but there is no indication that his work as a director is notable. There are no awards, and a search for reliable sources about him turn up nothing. A search for anything covering as a comedian also turn up nothing. -- Whpq (talk) 20:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:14, 18 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. DS (talk) 04:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Xidan

No sources proving existance, does not assert notability, which if sources article does not establish a claim of, no referenced with reliable sources or any sources, obscure chinese shopping center, no external links either Chuletadechancho (talk) 22:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Geographical features are notable, however those would be cities, towns, mountains, rivers, lakes, districts (such as gov't recognized historic districts and geographically demarcated electoral districts), neighborhoods (with neighborhood councils), shopping areas are not notable on their own. If it were so significant there would be sources. I looked for some and found none. Chinese sources count! Show them off, provide a link, we can get them translated even by machine to get a gist of it and determine if it is reliable, do you have Chinese language newspapers or magazine articles or the Xidan website? A travel guide? anything? It ~~was~~is entirely valid, since any article without any sources can be nominated, whether you like or agree with it or not, and this was completely in good faith, i looked for sources and found none. have a good day.Chuletadechancho (talk) 22:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Have you, Chuletadechancho, even bothered to google up the name in Chinese? There are many references to this place! I am considering this a bad-faith nom. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 22:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- Author's reasons for deletion is completely invalid (and borderline malicious), for the author only (intentionally or not) conducted a search using strictly English terms. The place's existence is verified by MANY reliable Chinese-language contents. The place is also introduced by the Beijing Olympics officials as a famous commercial area within the city of Beijing. This article also attests to the area's existence and notabilities. Those aforementioned article, in addition to many Chinese-language contents. verifies the place's existence and notability beyond any reasonable doubt, and also verifies the nominator for deletion has not conducted a slightly serious search for verification, and has nominated this article for deletion in bad faith and with absolute malice. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 00:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I would to point out that multiple hotels exist in the area. That would attest to the area's notability as a place. Also, as for Chuletadechancho's claims that a place has to be demarcated politically to be notable, Ahwatukee is officially a part of Phoenix, indistinguishable from other parts of the City of Phoenix, but yet, it has its own article. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 02:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That article refutes your statements as it says that it is one of 15 of the "urban villages" that make up albuquerque and the map seems to show that there is a very clear demarcation, this just goes to prove my point, one that was simply an example.Chuletadechancho (talk) 02:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Those "Urban Villages" are nothing more than signs on the boundary lines here in Phoenix. There are no significant political activities within these villages. There are advisory groups...Arbiteroftruth (talk) 02:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertation of notability. I can think of many districts that have supermarkets and shopping centers and even a few that *GASP* allow cars to drive on the streets! Themfromspace (talk) 23:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure definitely exists, but isn't really notable. I'll have to think. Change to Delete as non-notable. Erik the Red 2 (AVE•CAESAR) 02:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Numerous travel sites and government sites describe this as one of the four largest commercial districts in Beijing, the 12th largest city in the world and the second largest in China. The aforementioned links [10] [11] are sufficient proof that it exists and has a reasonable level of notability. It's a notable enough district to have an article in the Chinese Wikipedia: [12]. It's not surprising that sources don't come easy for this; most of them are probably in Chinese. It's easier to find articles if you search for "Xidan Commercial Street." Here are a few more I found (that weren't hotel brokerage sites): Xidan shopping, Official Chinese government page (which uses the word "famous"), Another Olympic-associated one. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Government pages and olympic pages (created by the government and its olympic body in that country) are not independent of the subject in this case which is a government created district. These do nothing to establish notability.--Crossmr (talk) 06:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think we're getting a little hung up on sources here. If we can agree that it's one of the largest commercial districts in the capital city of the most populous country in the world, do we really need to quibble about whether it's notable? As has been mentioned before, it's inevitably going to be harder to find English sources. In the meantime, numerous other non-government sources have been added to the article. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 07:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - No sorry we're not going to change the rules just because you can't prove notability. You've all but admitted that you can't find appropriate sources to back up notability, and since those indicating delete have been asked many times, why don't you reconsider changing your position? I've pointed out below I don't require English sources, but if chinese ones are provided they're going to need to be verified to make sure they satisfy the requirements. None of the English sources I've seen thus far remotely satisfy the guideline even the non-government ones, the links provided thus far are either self-serving or trivial. Unless I've missed one.--Crossmr (talk) 08:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Government websites, while having a degree of promoting business, also serve to provide official recognition of the area. (They refer to it as "Xidan Commerical District") I think that is notable enough. _dk (talk) 08:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Again existence != notability. Every government with a website probably has a list of the various subdivision, regions, etc within a city. These are not inherently notable. Notability exists for a reason because the community has decided that we only want to include articles on subjects that Joe Q Public has a reasonable chance of being interested in. if no one is writing about it, they've decided that its not good enough for inclusion.--Crossmr (talk) 13:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete existence != notability. Something has to be shown to show notability outside of standard travel guide boiler plate. The mytravel link is trivial coverage and doesn't establish notability. The beijing olympics link, is not really independent of the source as is required by notability guidelines. You should show a travel guide or something else devoting significant coverage to the subject (for example a travel show that does a 10 minute spot on it or something) in order to establish notability.--Crossmr (talk) 02:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I concur! the mytravel ref is trivial and the olympics site is insufficient at best, the chinese wikipedia article is not a source, it also doesn't provide any sources and the one external link is dead and redirects to some unrelated website. but one mention in an olympics website is not enough to establish notability, we need more. notability equals multiple non trivial coverage.Chuletadechancho (talk) 02:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete(with EC). Simple existence isn't enough for inclusion. I see no sources which assert a special notability in the article; there's been ample time to ramp up an AN/I thread about this, which means ample time to expand and save the article. that hasn't been done, leading me to believe that most of the g-hits represent non-notable results, instead of statistics on the commerce, history, and social importance of the area. As such, it's another outdoor market, one of thousands in China and thousand on thousands world wide, not all of which have Wikipedia entries, nor deserve them. Delete as non-notable. ThuranX (talk) 02:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I agree that existence != notability; however, an official Beijing government site declared that it's one of the most famous traditional commercial areas in Beijing. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Which is a source not independent of the subject. Which makes it useless in determining notability.--Crossmr (talk) 03:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - This. ThuranX (talk) 03:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment it was promising but then i noticed that it is an almost identical copy and paste version of the olympics website article. but keep up the good work, if it is the most famous surely you'll be able to find more than 1 repeated or two if you believe they are different reliable sources for it. i doubt it though.CdC—Chuleta de Chancho (talk) 02:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I would like to invite all users who voted to delete to return to the page, and take a look at the changes that has since been made. We now have 16-18 sources proving that this area exists, and that it is notable. Not counting government websites, there are at least three independent traveling websites that attests to this area's notability. I hope it would change your mind. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 15:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- reply I have done so, and while it's clear an admirable and fully good faith effort to improve has occurred, and you should be complimented for your dedication and efforts, and I do so compliment you here, most of those sources, as Crossmr points out above, many of those sites are commercial sites for China, official Chinese gov't media sites, and so on. I really don't see much there that isn't sourced to like, foriegn journalists describing it, or a book on Beijing's history. ThuranX (talk) 03:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ThuranX, your points (as stated) should also take into consideration the context and location of the area in question. Xidan is not in America or Europe, it is in China, and that's why those sources are from commercial sites in China! It's the same thing for the article on Ahwatukee. Few, if any, foreign press have covered the area (save for a crime story in the past, which just happens to occur in Ahwatukee). Most of its mentions come from Phoenix newspapers, in addition to mentions by local businesses. Does it mean we should delete Ahwatukee as well? Arbiteroftruth (talk) 04:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at Ahwatukee, it seems to be far more of a gazetteer entry that representing any particular notability to the town, esp. in light of all the dead link citations. I'd certainly examine an AfD if nominated; I'm not going to do so myself. But you missed my point, which was predictable; the citations for Xidan are little better than Chinese propaganda puff pieces "buy our goods by visiting beautiful Xidan shopping district." who cares? A place to buy stuff isn't notable. Every instance of commerce worldwide isn't independently notable, and the sources here are little better than ad-spam. Your defense seems to be ' that's how Chinese culture is so you can't judge the sources', and 'so what if they're commercial sites from china, the place is in china'. we don't like commercial sources from America for American articles either. ThuranX (talk) 14:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I do read and speak Chinese but some of you are contradicting your own votes. It is not an alley, it is a district. There are a multitude of sources independent of the topic. There are assertions it's the most popular shopping district in Beijing, related to the Olympics, the subject of archeological research, etc. AfD is not the place to suggest an article needs more sourcing. There are tags for this sort of thing. Please review WP:DP again and remember that if a cursory search returns the likelyhood of notability it's probably not suitable for deletion. AoT's earlier disagreeability is no reason to disregard policy. -- Logical Premise^Ergo? 16:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Those tags are to be used ONLY after the article satisfies the basic guidelines for inclusion, which this has not.--Crossmr (talk) 06:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ohnoitsjamie. Stifle (talk) 18:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. We wouldn't dream of deleting SoHo... let's not exacerbate the encyclopedia's English-centric systemic bias. TotientDragooned (talk) 19:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Soho has gotten a lot of press. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Unless someone can demonstrate notable coverage in a source independent of the subject, there is no reason for this to be here. There is no bias. I'm willing to accept any source in any language as long as it satisfies policy and guideline (and independent editors can verify that it says what is claimed).--Crossmr (talk) 06:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An overwhelming number of sources have been found, including on Google News and Google Books; see below. Dismissing these sources because "someone somewhere" told you that Xidan is also a Chinese name, and you can't confirm because you can't read Chinese, is bias. TotientDragooned (talk) 02:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep — The subject of the article clearly exists. Nothing else matters. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 02:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So notability (which is different from verifiability) doesn't matter? Themfromspace (talk) 03:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Precisely. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 03:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - My cats exist. Main articles, interactions between entities articles, effects on the economics and material resources of my household, and so on to follow. Wikipedia fails. ThuranX (talk) 03:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Those are all legitimate subjects for articles, because they all exist. I don't see what you're getting at here. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 03:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Except the community has long decided and there is a ton of precedent that exists in other AfDs, guidelines, etc that those are not acceptable subjects for articles.--Crossmr (talk) 06:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        On Wikipedia, we do not make blanket decisions beforehand that then apply across the board. Rather, we consider each case separately, judging it on its own merits without regard to what we might have typically done in the past. Every new case is an opportunity to revisit and rediscuss every relevant issue. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 14:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Didn't you just make a blanket generalization that if it exists its notable? Sorry, but consensus and precedent in decisions come from somewhere. Its done everyday just like that.--Crossmr (talk) 22:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        No, I made a blanket generalization that if it exists it's a worthy subject for an article. I didn't say anything about so-called "notability", because it's irrelevant. Verifiable existence is all that matters. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 13:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Please refrain from disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. MuZemike (talk) 07:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        No one's disrupting anything. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 14:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not seeing it notable enough for inclusion. Delete it. NonvocalScream (talk) 03:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Motion for restarting of AfD- I believe questionable actions on the initiator's behalf have poisoned the well, as well as the jury, the extent of which could render this as an equivalent to a kangaroo court proceeding. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 04:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We don't do that here. The AfDs run their course, unless there is evidence of massive disruption due to sock puppets or the like. Your constant assumptions of bad faith and name calling don't really do anything to endear you here.--Crossmr (talk) 06:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. First, there are, as of now, unofficial notability guidelines we can refer to when this kind of article gets nominated for deletion. Wikipedia:Notability (Geographic locations) and Wikipedia:Notability (geography) listed some points for consideration, such as: "a name that is either confirmed by the government of the place or by a reliable secondary source," As provided by the eBeijing website and others, the government has indeed recognized the place, also noting that the government-owned Beijing Subway has a "Xidan Station" that serves the area. I can't understand why the government's own website and its press would be considered insufficient to establish notability, unless the mentality behind that is the distrust of anything China.... I also note relevant discussions in WP:NTRAN and WP:STREET, for reference. _dk (talk) 08:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also note that asking for "independent" Chinese sources is ridiculous, since we all know that nothing is really independent in China, least of all the press. Any mainland Chinese source brought onto the table is going to be labelled as "non-notable promotional material" by the opposing side...._dk (talk) 09:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell the only wide (informal) concensus is that "major" geographical locations are notable (a bit of circular meaning here, just shifts the focus from notable to "major"), not any point on earth that holds a name, official or not. Equendil Talk 10:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Except this isn't a geographic area. This is a municipal district as far as I can tell and has nothing to do with geography so I can't see how that logic works. Beijing is a reasonably popular tourist destination in china. If this was a notable district, tourist magazines/shows/etc would have more than a cursory blurb about it. There could be potentially tons of reliable sources if this was truly notable.--Crossmr (talk) 13:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So according to you, human geography (population geography, urban geography) has nothing to do with geography? _dk (talk) 02:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Urban Geography seems to be based entirely off a single publication named that. As for human geography and population geography they don't seem remotely related to the unaccepted notability guideline you first linked to.--Crossmr (talk) 04:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll tell my university to cancel their 300-level geography courses because urban geography isn't a field of study! Someone on Wikipedia seems to believe that, and so it must be true! </sarcasm> _dk (talk) 07:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For fuck sake. First the AfD discussion was closed by a non admin as soon as it was up, then comments were moved around, now they're "moved to the talk page" (*this* is the relevant talk page, duh). ENOUGH. Below is what was removed, leave it alone. Equendil Talk 07:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I only refactored the page (without deletion) to make some semblance of the comments the first two were involved in. They had comments strewn all over the page at each other with multiple top level comments making it a pain to read.--Crossmr (talk) 08:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I know, indenting etc is ok, moving comments to a different section should be avoided though (such as the move to the "notes" section below). I'm just getting annoyed at the proceeding here, I'll get over it. Equendil Talk 09:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Why not try google news? It's where the bookstore is, in case anyone don't know. Yaan (talk) 13:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see Xi Dan name drops, I don't see any significant coverage of the area itself. I feel like someone has gone through these and found them to either all be trivial mentions or not independent of the subject, unless we missed one.--Crossmr (talk) 13:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Then is this independent enough to convince you that the place is "famous"? Yaan (talk) 14:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - You've probably established the notability of the Xidan Democracy Wall. As for as establishing notability of Xidan, do you really see this as significant coverage of xidan? Its used as a very light backdrop to a story about what happened surrounding the wall. Its an extremely tenuous tie. Even if we accept it as significant coverage, where is the second source? Notability requires multiple (at least 2) sources of significant coverage.--Crossmr (talk) 22:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As for having a foreign source covering this place, I found just that, on a travel book published by The Discovery Channel. In its travel guides on Beijing, there is a section on Xidan on Page 222. The book is available in many bookstores within the US (Barnes & Noble, along with Borders, should carry it. I found that book at a Borders Store). Arbiteroftruth (talk) 20:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A normal entry with hundreds or thousands of other places in a travel guide isn't notable. We've talked about travel guide entries before as many of those were attempted to be used earlier. Is the entry unusually large? or something else that makes the coverage of xidan stand out in this book?--Crossmr (talk) 22:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The entry is one section within a sub section (as is the structure of the book). Having one section dedicated to this area would lend it notability. Do you seriously expect a book to introduce a relatively nonnotable area with such expansive coverage? Arbiteroftruth (talk) 02:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sounds like a standard entry for any place. Yes, travel guides often include tons of areas that may be interesting to a tourist, but not necessarily notable to the general public.--Crossmr (talk) 04:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Once I saw the entry, there is no question that Xidan should NOT even be considered to be on this list. Just the past month alone, there are over 2,500 News entries from Google. I have never lived in Beijing and I have heard of it. It's almost like Compton (no, Xidan is NOT a bad neighborhood, I am just saying like Compton, it's very well known) in LA & Brooklyn in NY. TheAsianGURU (talk) 23:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The google news hits are misleading. Someone somewhere talked about how this word in chinese is also a name. So anyone in the news who has this name would show up on this search. Frankly that count can't be used as anything to establish anything.--Crossmr (talk) 01:28, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Any combination of two or more characters can be a Chinese name, this is how Chinese names work. Having said that, "Xidan" (with characters 西單) is very rarely used as a person's name and so should not influence the google news search in any misleading way. I can assure you, and you can find someone else to verify, that almost all of those 2500 news entries are talking about the area or a building within it. _dk (talk) 01:57, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as I said someone perhaps on AN/I when it was brought up there had already filtered the google results on this name for stuff just about the area and found nothing of value. If you think you have some sources, bring them here and have an independent editor who can read chinese attest to the content.--Crossmr (talk) 04:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response - Google Analysis I can't read Chinese fluently, but I've got enough to summarize the first page of Google News (keyword 西单), as of 1100 GMT today. Aside from the false positives, they all refer to the Beijing shopping district or the associated company. One of them is an article, from a major newspaper hundreds of miles away, about the shopping centre. It would be unusual to have this 'Xidan' as a person's name, unless you were born in the shopping centre or something. Matt's talk 10:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
News report about conference at the Xidan bookstore (this is a national website, but they assume readers will understand a reference to Xidan)

Probably a false positive, see below

Puff piece from stockbroker's on the Xidan Shopping Centre Company

Article saying that the Xidan shopping district is a great place to fall in love, from Shanghai's Xinmin Evening News

Two false results, the 'Xi' is from the end of one phrase and the 'dan' from the start of the next

News report on the Beijing Xidan Shopping Centre Company shareholder's meeting

News report on a controversial investment by the Xidan Shopping Centre Co.

Puff piece on jewellery available in the shopping centre

Report on current traffic trends from Beijing Youth Daily mentions Xidan as one of three major shopping/entertainment districts with high traffic flows.

Comment There are also about 800 hits on Google News Archives using the keyword "Xidan". These are all independent sources, and many of them are in English and thus easily verifiable. I hope this find proves beyond any reasonable doubt of Xidan's notability. I'm surprised no one brought this up before. _dk (talk) 02:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They were brought up, and as I pointed about above xidan is also a chinese name for a person which taints any google results. If you think there are reliable sources there in the xidan area which give it significant coverage feel free to bring some to the AfD or article. Regardless of which google hits hasn't been used to establish notability in years on wikipedia. So simply linking to a search claiming 'it's there' won't quite cut it. AoT has been looking for days for something and hasn't been able to come up with anything that isn't a standard travel guide/non-independent source. Don't you think if something were just a google search away, he would have brought it here already?--Crossmr (talk) 04:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, seeing as you have no knowledge of Chinese, you are relying on "someone somewhere" to back your claim of Xidan also being a Chinese name. And from what you say, you are depending on "someone perhaps on AN/I" to filter the google search and just believe whatever he claims without verifying them for yourself. I don't think you have the in-depth knowledge of the subject, nor are you willing to do the simplest research, to have a say in this deletion debate. Why does "someone somewhere"'s claim hold more ground than what we are saying here? Anyways, sources say more than rhetoric in Wikipedia, so here we go:
  - Xidan Shopping Area Changing from 'Street' to 'Loop'., SinoCast China Business Daily News, 2002
  - Fast Food Chains Eye on Xidan Commercial Center to Open Outlets., SinoCast China Business Daily News, 2005
  - Bus Bombing Fails to Daunt Shopping Day In Beijing, New York Times, 1997
  - Finding the Peking Beyond the Tour Bus, New York Times, 1983
  These are just from the first 10 pages, and they happen to go in-depth about Xidan. Of the ones that only mentioned Xidan in passing, the mentions are preceded by qualifiers like "a busy commercial district", "the busiest commercial area in Beijing", "bustling", "a district west of Tiananmen Square popular with younger shoppers", and "one of where most of the bloodshed took place in the Tiananmen Massacre". Hmm. Really though, from the Beijing people's point of view, Xidan doesn't need sources to proof it is notable, it is already a part of their lives....It's one of those things that the Chinese won't write about because they all know about it, and foreigners won't talk about because they don't really care enough to write about it. (The same mentality, I suspect, is happening here in Wikipedia.) _dk (talk) 07:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting non admin closure

Reverting non admin closure:

The result was Non-Admin Close by User:Arbiteroftruth, for there are many references about Xidan's existence as a place within the City of Beijing, and major geographical/topographical features within a city (especially when it is close to the administrative centers of China) are inherently important. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 22:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)}}

It was not done properly (AfD notice still in the article).
This was not in accordance with WP:NAC or WP:DPR#NAC. WP:SNOW *could* be invoked, however, the article is not so much about a geographical place as the name of a shopping district (whether it is major or not can be discussed here). Equendil Talk 22:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note Arbiteroftruth (AoT) has left the following message on my talk page,
"You claimed to have conducted a search, but you have not. Had you searched seriously, you would have found an article on the Beijing Olympics page describing the place. That establishes Xidan's existence, as well as its notability.
Your actions has demonstrated that you have, maliciously, made a bad faith nomination on a perfectly fine page. This is your warning. Do not do this again. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 00:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)"[13]
I googled "西单" and "Xidan" and also used Google Scholar. I will also make a request for sources at the reference desk. If there are Chinese language sources, many as you say, bring them foward here, they are valid and should be considered. The Olympics page establishes verifiability, however is does not establish notability, furthermore it is poorly written stating among other things that Xidan is "congested of underground restaurants" The myTravel guide is a one paragraph user generated piece of original research.Chuletadechancho (talk) 01:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have brought them forward, and it is not my fault that you chose to purposely ignore them. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 01:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You claimed to have googled for both Xidan and its corresponding Chinese terms, and yet, you have missed, in total, many mall articles about the area, as well as two articles from Baidu and Hoodong on the Chinese side. On the Beijing Olympics article, it also establishes notability because it introduces the major places within that city. Do you seriously think it would introduce a backalley? Also your accusations of it being poorly written is totally irrelevent, as it is still legible and it comes from the Beijing Olympics committee, which means it is an empirical source. This is just an extension of your bad-faith nomination of this page. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 01:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I googled and google scholared those two terms, and found nothing, anyone else could do the same and find that's what i found. What have a i missed on Baidu and Hoodong? If you found something come forward with a link to it so that we can see it. I have no idea what you mean by back alley. Speaking of poor writing "irrelevent" is spelled irrelevant, and the irrelevance is that something that is poorly written is poorly edited and not an ideal source. It is one source. For something to be notable it should have multiple non trivial coverage in reliable sources. The Beijing Olympics committee website is an empirical source which makes it by definition not very reliable, since it is based on experience not real study. There is no bad faith here.Chuletadechancho (talk) 01:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, but I should not be responsible for your purposeful ignoring of links and twisting of information. Xidan's page at the Beijing Olympics Official Website came up as the fifth item on any Google search. I have searched for it five times, and it came back as the fifth item five times. As for the Beijing's site being poorly written, it is not an issue, as I have said. There might be some things that did not go through correctly because of language barriers, but that does not mean it is unreliable. The undeniable fact still remains that that page belongs to the Beijing Olympics Committee! Arbiteroftruth (talk) 01:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AoT, you have been warned on WP:ANI to remain civil. That doesn't just apply there, that applies everywhere. And what do you mean, the page belongs to the Olympic Committee? No Wikipedia page belongs to any one person or group. Corvus cornix_talk 02:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was not talking about the Wikipedia page. I know the rules about no ownership as well as you do. I meant the page we cited. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 15:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In AoT's defense it seems like s/he is talking about the Beijing Olympic Committee website.CdC—Chuleta de Chancho (talk) 03:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Thanks. I got confused. :) Corvus cornix_talk 03:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it, I ~~wasn't~~am not sure either taking into account AoT's ridiculous banter, but in this one instance we're wrong. haha.CdC—Chuleta de Chancho (talk) 03:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of reliable source material in Google Books. For goodness sakes, even the Google Book full view only has 262 hits, representing a possible 262 sources of easily accessible material for Wikipedia. That is a lot more full view hits than I normally see, even for some public domain topics such as those from before 1923. The topic meets WP:N. Also, it doesn't seem too POV to delete as as a POV Fork. The use of websites and blogs as source material is unfortunate, but those can be switched out over time with the available and easily accessible source material noted above. Renamin to Xidan (commercial district) might be appropriate so us Westerners can more immediately understand the topic of the article. -- Suntag ☼ 16:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Internet available publications have been writing about Xidan since at least 1949, see Google book search 1900-1960. It seems likely that there should be enought source material published over the past 58 years to have a Wikipedia article on Xidan. -- Suntag ☼ 17:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of sources that I can find, that are more than passing references. And that's just in English. Arakunem^Talk 19:17, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Point 5 out then.CdC—Chuleta de Chancho (talk) 20:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per CdC's original reasoning: "Geographical features are notable [...] such as gov't recognized historic districts". I'll consider the Beijing Government website as government recognition of the district. Travel guides are published secondary sources and thus bestow notability on the places discussed, too. Huon (talk) 23:17, 19 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 redirect to BC Lions#Players and builders of note. Redirect as content is already merged and per consensus below. (non-admin closure) Protonk (talk) 22:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BC Lions' players and builders of note

Duplicate of information now merged into main BC Lions page. Gateman1997 (talk) 21:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:LC items 2, 7, and 9. Optionally recreate as a redirect to BC Lions. Stifle (talk) 18:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to BC Lions#Players and builders of note as all relevant info is there. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 22:21, 18 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. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:28, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas 'Darien' Walker

Reads like a fan page; advertising and heavily biased. Has no sources, and while i wasn't extremely thorough in attempting to find some, I didn't see any in the usual places you expect this kind of thing to be made out to be notable. Jimmi Hugh (talk) 21:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete Like the nominator I can't find any notable links or reviews via google, just links from blogs here and there. --Blowdart | ^talk 10:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The lack of citations from reliable sources in this article leads me to conclude that the article is not in compliance with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 18:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails NOTABILITY. Kittybrewster ☎ 08:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While I did create the original ThatGuyWithTheGlasses article that was deleted, this article is a mess. Mirrored right from Internet Wikia, I should note as well. --71.183.241.51 (talk) 18:19, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteWhile I really don't want this article deleted,there's no other choice,this guy's not notable enough to be sourced by well known,trusted internet or media sources...--Sammy theeditor (talk) 03:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Couldn't find non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:24, 21 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 23:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Canadians of Asian ancestry

Indiscriminate list about a non-notable subject of interest, of which i've never seen any Major studies or academics related to. Jimmi Hugh (talk) 21:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 21:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 21:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Trivial intersection. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I gotta disagree with my friend 10-lb. on this one. To me, this no different than List of Asian Americans, and I don't think it's at all trivial. Mandsford (talk) 22:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Firstly, there is no precendent set by other articles, for all it's worth that article could also be just as viable for deletion. Secondly, in that case, the topic of "Asian Americans" is of notable academic interest and features an article in it's own right. However, we really should think about it's inclusion in Wikipedia also, but that is an entirely serarate issue. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 23:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I guess I just don't get it, and maybe if the topic of "Asian-Canadians" isn't of academic interest, that's a Canadian thing. From what I can tell, there are more "East Asian/Southeast Asian" (7%) and "South Asian" (4%) residents of Canada then there are "black" Canadians (if I read the census data correctly), and it seems that it would be a pretty substantial minority. I'm surprised if sociologists in Canada don't concern themselves about the wide variety of ethnic groups within their nation's borders, but maybe it's just British Canadian, French Canadien and "other". Mandsford (talk) 00:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Given the proportion of Asians in Canada, this list runs the very real risk of becoming indiscriminate. I don't think it's quite there yet, though, so I'm neutral on the AfD. But I think we do need to consider such things -- while the topic of Asian-Canadians may well be notable in itself, a list of all notable Asian-Canadians could get really unwieldy. RayAYang (talk) 05:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per items 1-4, 7, 9, and 10 of WP:LC. Stifle (talk) 18:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that this isn't valid content; it's that we already have more specific lists at Chinese Canadians, Japanese Canadians, Korean Canadians, Vietnamese Canadians, and on and so forth, so this list essentially duplicates other content unnecessarily. Delete, but give it a once-over first to make sure that everybody is also listed on their more appropriate nation-specific list. Bearcat (talk) 22:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I say we should keep this article. The article just needs more written information to enhance the readability of lengthy data. There is a list of British Asian people in Wikipedia. Jimmi Hugh is being irrational. Sonic99 (talk) 03:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Hey, while you're welcome to your opinion, I'd rather you didn't call me irrational, at least when you haven't provided a single good reason to keep. I'm quite touchy about my sanity and logic. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 20:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:CIVIL. Differences of opinion are not proof that anybody's necessarily being "irrational". Bearcat (talk) 18:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearcat and Stifle. Vegaswikian (talk) 16:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why the hell do you want to delete this article when you don't bother to delete the list of British Asian people? Yes, the asian community is large in Canada and this article provides this fact. Fact should not deleted. We can edit the article and make it better. You can delete the list of asian names in the article and rename the article as Asian Canadian. Sonic99 (talk) 02:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Firstly, I didn't once mention not wanting to delete the British Asian article in this AfD, you must have somehow misread it when I didn't even mention that article once. Secondly, having looked at that article since you mentioned it, I would infact choose to keep it, firstly because it's not an indiscriminate list, and secondly because despite my own dislike of these classifications, the topic of "British Asian" ancestory is academically notable and studied (Therefore providing content to make an encyclopedia article about), Asian Canadian Academia is slim to none and this is not a dictionary, it is a place to bring together established topics of interest. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 17:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I said before that we can edit the article and make it better. If we change the article and make it academically notable, it won't be indiscriminated. Canada is a multicultural and racial tolerant country. Asians and europeans live and work together in Canada. Why would a British man living in England, want to meddle a Canadian article? Sonic99 (talk) 02:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hehe, I got a good giggle out of that. However, incase you're not aware, Wikipedia is not a place for intellectual debate or Original Research. All information must be already documented and verifiable. Also, I'm "meddling" in an English Language article, I couldn't care less about what country the article is about, try not to take the topic so personally. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 11:57, 21 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. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neo, famous dog

I'd love to have speedied this, but I don't think A7 or G3 fit it. Basically, this dog isn't listed in the cast for dolittle 2 and a google search doesn't help. I'm sure the dog is cute but he's no Eddie_(Frasier)#Eddie Eddie or Soccer. No evidence he's a notable dog. TravellingCari 21:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notableChuletadechancho (talk) 23:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - cute.. but notable? me thinkest not. SkierRMH (talk) 04:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 09:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE TO CLOSING ADMIN due to the move of the article, if this is closed as delete, both Neo (dog) (current home) and the now-redirect Neo, famous dog will need to be deleted. TravellingCari 15:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unfortunately I can say nothing more than the previous contributors. Stifle (talk) 18:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete as notability cannot be established per reliable sources. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:49, 19 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 to delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 16:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of creatures in the Resident Evil series

This list is mainly game guide material that does not establish any sort of notability. The enemies of each game can be summed up within the separate articles. There is no need to list each separately. TTN (talk) 21:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. TTN (talk) 21:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 21:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The rest I can see, but Tyrant seems like a subject that could be made into an article, given it's an icon of the series and that Nemesis (on the same page, with reception of its own) can be combined into it. Film appearances for both characters should add a bit of bulk too. If not an article then placed somewhere else, as it does deserve some degree of encyclopedic mention. Thoughts?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:23, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup per Jonny2x4's statements below.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep these list are common place and widely known, they don't merit own articles but a list type article that talks about the characters from the series is beneficial.Chuletadechancho (talk) 22:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is the appropriate way of handling characters like this,and much better than discussing them in each pertinent article. If the contnt is relevant there, its just a relevant and appropriate collected here. DGG (talk) 23:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there is really no arguable alternative for the collection of this information. Short synopses in the articles themselves would be pointlessly redundant. Ford MF (talk) 00:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup as the list as a whole satisfies WP:GNG. If there is WP:GAMEGUIDE material, then mark it for cleanup. If splitting is necessary, propose a split per WP:SPLIT instead of going through AfD. MuZemike (talk) 00:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Split out "Nemesis" and delete: as this list of enemies is a violation of WP:VGSCOPE, WP:NNC/WP:UNDUE and WP:NOT#PLOT. Wikipedia is not the place to list every single enemy within a game. However, split out Nemesis (Resident Evil) as its own article, as it is a full-fledged character with critical coverage in reliable third-party sources. The remainder of the enemies are unsourceable, unless you rely upon official material from capcom as this article currently does. In the alternative, rename this article to "Nemesis (Resident Evil)" and remove the remainder of the WP:NOT/WP:GAMETRIVIA info. Randomran (talk) 00:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup. I've been meaning to clean this one up for quite awhile, but I kinda just forgot about it. In the case it gets deleted, a lot of the creatures in this article could just be mentioned in the Gameplay subsection of the game they're featured (i.e: Yawn could be mentioned in the RE1 article, Hypnos could be mentioned in the Gun Survivor article and so on). Enemy creatures like the Tyrant and Nemesis that assert notability could get their own article as well. Jonny2x4 (talk) 02:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is unabashed video game cruft. 99% of these enemies have received no coverage outside the in-game universe. How does a list of enemies satisfy WP:N or WP:VGSCOPE? It doesn't. -- Noj r (talk) 04:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LC items 2, 3, 6, and 8 of WP:LC. Stifle (talk) 18:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ The fundamental problem with this list is that it's a list. The moment you make a list you're asserting that all items within the criteria, which is either the name or the stated purpose of the list, are equally worthy of note, and that the list must be filled. The moment that happens all sense of perspective goes down the crapper, as seen here, the result is bloody useless to someone who actually wants to learn how these critters fit into the series. The better way of doing it is to convert it into an article, give due weight to appropriate creatures (zombies, lickers and the nemesis for instance), group the others under 'mutated flora and fauna' and 'bioweapons' (which is all they are), look at the wider picture and answer the question "what kind of creatures are found in the RE series?" The answer to which is not listing every zoo animal infected with the T-virus from a single episode of a single game which occurs outside the main series. Insignificant entries like the zoo animals and the irrelevant brainsucker can be banished, if they're mentioned in the game articles then that's as much as they could possibly warrant. Someone another 21:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Although it remains a possibility that an article on this subject could be brought together, an extended search produced no strong cornerstones for an article of that nature, and piecing one together from scraps would be a massive undertaking. The only thing I am sure about is that a list of each critter is unwarranted. Someone another 23:48, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup and Keep personally, I came to this article because essentially it is exactly what I was looking for (list of characters in all the resident evil games). Admittedly, it could be reformatted into article form rather than list form but I think the page itself serves a purpose, and one that is mighty useful. 90.203.184.38 (talk) 21:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — these isn't a character list, this is nothing more than pure game guide content that lists all the enemies in the series and is nothing more than excessive plot summary. Not appropriate per WP:VGSCOPE; coverage of the enemies from the perspective of the series should take place on the series article. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 03:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Cleanup per MuZemike. S. Luke (talk) 04:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball keep per everyone and per such comments as this. There is no need to delete this article about a notable topic. User seems to be taking the project to arbitration as seen at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Request_for_clarification:_Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration.2FEpisodes_and_characters_2, which I noticed from the link on his talk page. As for splitting out Nemesis and then deleting this article, that cannot be done per the GFDL, i.e. Wikipedia:Merge and delete. AfDcruft pure and simple. --172.168.52.20 (talk) 14:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the record it wouldn't actually be a Merge and Delete issue in that case, as Nemesis did actually have his own article for a time.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename and excise per Randomran. One member of this list is notable. The rest are not covered in secondary sources and there certainly isn't any "list of villains in RE" in a secondary source indicating that this is a notable topic of interest. Do not keep this whole list Protonk (talk) 22:55, 20 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. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 18:37, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Shivamurthy Murugharajendra Sharanaru

Bio of a non notable with no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 21:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 21:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 21:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The lack of citations from reliable sources in this article leads me to conclude that the article is not in compliance with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 18:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources to establish + some parts of the article seem to be written like spam. Gizza^Discuss ^© 03:14, 21 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. Consensus is clear that this does not belong here. User:Prod, please contact me if/when you want to move it, and I will provide the article to you.--Kubigula (talk) 15:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Blood creatures

This is pure game guide material that does not establish notability in with the use of reliable sources. TTN (talk) 21:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 21:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 21:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a Game Guide. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per TTN and Magioladitis. -- Noj r (talk) 04:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree to delete provided whoever performs the deletion or anyone else actually moves the stuff from the article to a more suitable place (e.g. Wikibooks [14]) and removes any dead link resulting from deletion of this article in the article Blood (computer game). All in all Blood creatures are not as "iconic" as those of Doom and they probably can't find place on Wikipedia. Berserker79 (talk) 17:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia isn't a game guide. Stifle (talk) 18:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as with the other comments, game guide stuff doesnt belong on an encyclopedia. Salavat (talk) 18:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'd like to copy this over to StrategyWiki, but Special:Export seems to be disabled currently. Please don't delete this at least until next weekend. -- Prod (Talk) 02:06, 21 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. and kudos to skomorokh for helping to clean it up (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zebra & Giraffe

I speedy deleted this as not asserting notability. I had done a google (and google news) search prior to deletion, but apparently, I missed a slew of potentially reliable sources that I have now added to the restored article. I'm not convinced yet of the quality of the "reviews" and independent sourcing. Also, the article is written in a very "non-encyclopedic" tone. Not a reason for deletion, hence the restore from my speedy deletion earlier. This needs independent eyes to determine if this music group from South Africa is in fact notable. (and any cleanup that anyone is willing to do is of course much appreciated :-) Keeper ǀ 76 20:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keel dee zeeba. The sources aren't very substantial, so I feel that this, whatever this is, isn't notable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC) Withdrawing my !vote for now until more sources turn up, if any do. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The page created about the South African band, Zebra & Giraffe, has been restored. It is a very good article about the band that is currently very big in South Africa and the article explained exactly everything about how the band came to life, who they are, their current status, music videos, how they are doing on the charts, etc. etc.

The article was written after an interview with their frontman, Greg Carlin, who also started the band, and everything in it is factual and also has his approval.

Zebra and Giraffe is taking the music industry by storm with their debut album, Collected Memories, and has had a lot of independant reviews and articles written about them. See the article itself for more information on this band and it will be clear that this is not an article just to get them noticed, it is simply informative, seeing as they are already considered as one of the best bands in South African music. --Rachelle crous (talk) 21:23, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It reads like a big PR piece, making all sorts of WP:PEACOCKy terms. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I really am neutral on this band, but "peacock" language is definitely a problem that can be cleaned up. Doesn't necessarily mean delete, just cleaned up. Keeper ǀ 76 21:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very Weak Keep it needs to be trimmed for fluff as TPH and Keeper have said above. That said there's some RS coverage. While this isn't a reliable source, it lends credence to some of the claims and there may be a way to verify them. If so, they're probably notable. TravellingCari 21:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found this article from iAfrica.com, which is an influential news site for the continent: [15]. Also, this act is signed to a major South African label, it already has a hit song on the South African charts, and it is touring the country. Please be aware that a great deal of South Africa's media sources are not linked to Google, so trying to research any subject related to that country can be difficult. You have to go directly to the main news sources, and in many cases you have to pay to access older articles. Also, it should be stressed this article -- although very handsomely produced and well-written -- needs to be massaged into a format that is more acceptable for Wikipedia purposes. That would call for editing, not erasure. Ecoleetage (talk) 22:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

People, Z&G is one of the best and biggest bands in our country at the moment!! I think this is a fantastic article because it gives you all the information u'll ever need or wondered about!! Please don't delete it!! I agree that Greg Carlin is a musical genius and why would you wonder about verification if there are so many external links that clearly shows what this band is made of and the article was written after an interview WITH GREG CARLIN HIMSELF - what more do you want?? DON'T DELETE IT!!--Workspots (talk) 22:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Neutral A public relations puff-piece, which does neither the subject nor the article any service. As noted above, desperately needs rewriting. JNW (talk) 22:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NMG, but complete rewrite needed to comply with WP:NPOV and WP:MOS. Stifle (talk) 18:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets the sniff test. Probably meets WP:NM criteria 1, 2, 4, 5, and 11. The apparent lack of RS's to affirm this is, I suspect, a reflection of our systemic bias in according overwhelmingly undue attention to online searches to verify coverage. I imagine editors in Johannesburg could find a great deal of significant print and radio coverage of this act. In the meantime, the Iafrica.com article means the subject meets the WP:GNG (Iafrica.com is owned by Primedia, has editorial oversight and appears to employ professional journalists). I have cleared up a lot of the WP:PROBLEMS associated with the article and think the encyclopedia benefits from its inclusion. the skomorokh 16:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:17, 18 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. nomination withdrawn - auburnpilot talk 22:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Marsh

The result was keep (nomination withdrawn) --Badmotorfinger (talk) 22:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Never played a single game in The Football League or any other professional football league (although he did play once in the Carling Cup). Badmotorfinger (talk) 20:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - A Carling Cup appearance, provided that it was between two teams that play in fully professional leagues, is enough to confer notability. At least, that's what previous consensus has always said. – Pee Jay 20:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - Carling Cup appearances count as first team games. --JonBroxton (talk) 21:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. WP:ATHLETE was vague on the subject, but I see now that he passes WP:FOOTYN, so I hereby withdraw the AFD. --Badmotorfinger (talk) 22:15, 16 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 at author's request. I've also userfied the "replacement" article on the off-chance that some sources can be found. Articles that say "x item may have existed, we can't be sure" are liable to deletion, this being an encyclopedia and everything. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ has nothing to declare except his jeans 13:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Smiths Twisters

Wikipedia is not the place for something you think you might remember something about but aren't quite sure. Ros0709 (talk) 20:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article as it stands seems to contain no verifiable information whatsoever ("It is thought they were introduced in the 1970s"... "it is unclear as to how many flavours were also produced" etc) and Google thinks that Smiths Twisters (or "Smith's Twisters") was actually a brand of alloy wheels, so maybe not even the name is correct. I suggest that the creator look for some reliable sources and tries again once he's sure of his facts. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 20:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' this twisted article (I'm starting to sound like Mandsford). No reliable sources, and a writer who's probably pulling facts out of his @$$. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete why do we need to know about chips from the 70's? CRocka05 (talk) 22:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I suggest that this article might be redirected to The Smith's Snackfood Company. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That works - or Twisties might be better still - maybe it's what the creator was thinking of. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 22:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure. It appears the article name isn't even right - or maybe it is and we'd redirect to the wrong page. Who knows? Ros0709 (talk) 23:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously delete per nom. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 09:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What pathetic subjective sounding comments from uninterested users. This article needs to stay on for others who are interested to see it and hopefully add / edit it. Im after objective constructive critiscism / help - not negative rubbish. If your not interested in crisps then look elsewhere (somewhere I probably wouldn't be interested). I do know what I'm on about (as I used to eat them as a child) although a couple of facts may / may not be correct. There is currently seems to be no info on these over the internet at the moment which is why I have made this page. The only way to correct them and improve the article would be: i. for me to try and research some more info (this could take time) and ii. for constructive users to add to it if they have ay info. Without this page there will be little chance to ever find out the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hulk77 (talk • contribs) 12:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Due to further research a new article has been made under Twisters Crisps for Wikipedia to deem appropriate or otherwise. The author requests this older article is removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hulk77 (talk • contribs) 13:18, 17 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. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Birbiglia

Non-notable comedian whose only claim to fame is being the brother of Mike Birbiglia. A google search only returns 27 hits for the name. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 20:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into his brothers page until he becomes notiable (sp?) CRocka05 (talk) 22:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The lack of citations from reliable sources in this article leads me to conclude that the article is not in compliance with the verifiability policy. Not opposed merging anything that can be verified. Stifle (talk) 18:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:18, 18 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. Has not played at the highest level, i.e. in a fully professional league, per WP:Athlete and has no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources per WP:N. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Roberts (footballer)

Fails WP:ATHLETE. Former Liverpool youth team player who has never played a competitive game in a fully-professional league (and for that matter only played once for Weymouth before being released). Badmotorfinger (talk) 20:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 17:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, didn't play in the first team, therefore not notable. Stifle (talk) 18:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. GauchoDude (talk) 21:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a totally non-notable player. Bettia (rawr CRUSH!) 09:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails NOTABILITY Kittybrewster ☎ 08:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not yet played notably. recreate if and when...--ClubOranje^Talk 00:54, 20 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. - Mailer Diablo 09:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Far Eastern University Boosters

Notibility not established. Only reference link is broken. I would have nominated for speedy deletion if there hadn't been so many tags on it. KJS77 Join the Revolution 20:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; even in its cleaned-up state it was non-notable, and the creator keeps reverting it to a spammy mess. If it weren't for the fact that they'd be unable to participate in this AfD discussion, I'd be threatening the 3RR blocks about now. – iride scent 20:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 22:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —bluemask ^(talk) 03:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is like the cheering team of Far Eastern University, no notable outside the school. –Howard the Duck 03:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, seems this was just made because of idolatry to the said cheering team. Cheerings here in the Philippines is not that prestigious compared to the United States, yes although there are competitions, those weren't "big" events. Axxand SPEAK ACT 08:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. The lack of citations from reliable sources in this article leads me to conclude that the article is not in compliance with the verifiability policy. Even if it were, I do not think that this group has sufficient notability for inclusion (see WP:ORG). Stifle (talk) 18:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. This is simply the gallery boosters of Far Eastern University Cheering Squad. The article is loaded with copyvio and lacking in notability. Starczamora (talk) 15:18, 19 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 redirected to stereotype. Non-admin closure via editorial action; redirect is a plausible typo. Serpent's Choice (talk) 16:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steroetypical

AfDs for this article:

This is some strange piece of WP:OR, and is completely unsourced. Woland (talk) 19:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary Equendil Talk 22:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — nothing but a dictionary definition. MuZemike (talk) 00:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:OR or dictionary definition or neologism. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 09:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to stereotype. But for the AfD, someone could have just done this, and suggest that this be closed to allow this to be done now. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:36, 17 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. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:31, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart pepper

This director seems to be non-notable because he didn't win any awards. Schuym1 (talk) 19:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:CREATIVE. Ka renjc 19:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The lack of citations from reliable sources in this article leads me to conclude that the article is not in compliance with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 18:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Delete. Let the article retuirn in a few years after his notability will be easier to prove or if other editors care to assist. per search 1 and search 2. He and his works have received much attention in reliable sources. Notability is available for article improvement. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC) Changed my vote. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment: It's to bad that I can't withdraw it, since there are two delete votes. Schuym1 (talk) 22:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: will take a stab at improvement, so subsequent editors and closing nom might note changes. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Have begun expansion, wikification, sourcing, and external links. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note There seems to be some evidence, or at least mentions, that one of his films was nominated for some awards.... but South Florida films and filmmakers don't seem to get much press in the rest of the world. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:35, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I took a look at the sources he provided and they don't show notability. Also, most of them are just mentions. Schuym1 (talk) 03:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - still no evidence of notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. —Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. —Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Well... the article's better. Hope Floridians or baseball editors can help. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that it's better. He use to be a pro sports player which passes WP:ATHLETE. Schuym1 (talk) 11:40, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the baseball league he participated in definitely does not confer notability, so if he's not notable for other things, he certainly is not notable per WP:ATHLETE. matt91486 (talk) 15:17, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment per WP:Athlete QUOTE: "Competitors who have competed in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, golf or tennis. Competitors who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports", he does have notability. His professional league career does qualify him per WP:Athlete. But I am through fighting. It can go. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:40, 20 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. Stifle (talk) 14:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Radu Sardescu

A 27-year-old (yes, he was actually born in 1981, and in English it's called Bucharest, by the way) who kicks around a ball well enough to be on a second-rate team. That's it. Yes, I'm sure some people will vote "Keep - passes WP:ATHLETE". But just because it passes a policy doesn't automatically mean we should be keeping this "article". There's just nothing on this guy - I checked - but roster lists and a couple of sentences saying he's not that good a player. I assure you, this isn't one of those "someone will come along later and improve the article" cases - what you see is more or less what you'll be getting (OK, maybe a template incorporating his history). Shouldn't we aspire to a higher standard than this? He's already listed here and that really should be enough as far as Sardescu's presence on Wikipedia is concerned. Biruitorul ^Talk 19:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but as you rightly point out, he passes WP:ATHLETE so he's notable enough for inclusion, period. So on what grounds should the article be deleted? The policy is there to provide a yardstick against which we measure articles, and he measures up. I don't care two hoots about him, and I'll probably never look at the article again after today, but that's not the point. I added cats and stub template to make a small start on improvement. Ka renjc 20:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, but it is indeed the point! And, might I add, there's more to be said after the "period". You see, WP:ATHLETE is a mere guideline. It does not supersede WP:N (itself a guideline) or WP:V (an official policy). Moreover, policy aside (ie, WP:IAR), why? Really, how does it enrich the encyclopedia to have hundreds and hundreds of articles stating that some guy plays football for some team? Biruitorul ^Talk 17:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:N says "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be a suitable article topic" (emphasis mine). I can't find anything there, in WP:DEL#REASON, in WP:STUB or in my memory of precedent suggesting that an otherwise suitable stub should be deleted merely because it's unlikely to be expanded. If he's a suitable topic but there's not much to say about him, isn't it better to say that than nothing at all? Olaf Davis | Talk 21:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- First, WP:STUB says that a stub "should contain enough information for other editors to expand upon it". Implicitly, that means every article ought to have expansion potential. However, given the lack of sources on this individual (and - my second point - reliable independent sources are indeed lacking - almost every Google hit on him is a roster list), this stub cannot be expanded. Third, the relevant information that we say about him here - his playing for Progresul- is already here. Fourth: I assure you this isn't a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT (I have no personal feelings on the man), but allow me to reiterate my philosophical objection to "X is a football player for Y" type articles. The fact is they reduce the encyclopedia's calibre. I thought brilliant prose, footnotes, scholarliness, in-depth coverage were all goals of ours. (Which is not to say all articles must be "serious" - see here for a good exception - but this one is both boring and trivial, a rather fatal combination in my view.) But guys like these have a habit of flooding the encyclopedia with permanent micro-stubs destined to remain in that state (I almost guarantee it) for good. So of course, according to policy, this "article" can exist. The question is should it and its growing number of counterparts continue to reside here? I submit, emphatically, no, better keep them on sports fansites. Biruitorul ^Talk 17:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've prod'ed ~~three~~ four of Prodigy.addicted's sub-stubs and expanded the two Brazilians to assert notability and move them up to stub class. If this article also gets deleted, they will be his only two contributions so hardly a flood of micro-stubs there. Jogurney (talk) 12:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if he's addicted, he's bound to keep them coming, no? :) But yes, I was referring more to Jjmihai and Mario1987 (some of whose articles do have appreciable text, but many of which do not). Biruitorul ^Talk 16:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I missed the link for Jjmihai's contributions. I have cleaned up over 100 of Mario1987's articles (resulting in dozens of deletions), and so it seems we have much more work to do with Jjmihai. Ugh. Jogurney (talk) 16:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets the WP:ATHLETE notability guideline. In the absence of any other deletion rationale, I have to say "Keep". Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- But he fails WP:N (no multiple independent sources asserting notability), doesn't he? And, really, what's the point of the article? Does it really improve the encyclopedia in any way? Biruitorul ^Talk 17:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - But passing WP:ATHLETE is also sufficient, regardless of the multiple sources thing (though of course we need reliable sources to state that he does pass it) - see the top of that page. I don't have time to investigate the details of the second Romanian division right now, but we should probably do that first: if it turns out it's not fully professional then he's not notable and we can delete him without resorting to argument about whether the article does any good. If it is, we can give our philosophical positions an airing. Olaf Davis | Talk 21:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Point taken, I suppose. WP:ATHLETE reform has stalled for years; this is the place to attempt it; perhaps now things will change (though I'm not holding my breath). Biruitorul ^Talk 16:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - does he pass WP:ATHLETE? It appears he has only played matches in the second level of Romanian football, and I don't know if that level is fully professional. Jogurney (talk) 12:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Was Rapid in the 2nd division when he played for them? The club is definitely in Liga I now. matt91486 (talk) 03:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, but the link provided only has him playing twice for Electromagnetica (Rapid II) and zero times for the Rapid first team. Jogurney (talk) 03:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep even nom admits he passes WPATHLETE. Giant Snowman 17:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's try taking that thinking to the next level. Say he passes. So what? How does this "article", bound to remain in micro-stub form, in any way improve the encyclopedia? Biruitorul ^Talk 16:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see [[16]] for concerns about systemic bias. Romanian league sources are harder to come by on the internet, yes. That is not to say any sources don't exist. matt91486 (talk) 01:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And the chances someone will look through back issues of Gazeta Sporturilor in the hopes of finding information on Sardescu, then coming back here to expand the article, are...? Biruitorul ^Talk 16:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The odds of something aren't relevant. Stubs are acceptable articles. matt91486 (talk) 18:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. WP:STUB presumes stubs will eventually leave that state. 2. The odds (in this case almost nil) are indeed relevant. Combine the fact that Sardescu's notability is a very shaky proposition with the reality that what we have now is what we will always have on him, and the case for deletion only gets stronger. Biruitorul ^Talk 18:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't voted for keep, because at this point, it doesn't appear he meets WP:ATHLETE. I'm just pointing out that your rationale is at least in part faulty. I believe you're drastically misreading WP:STUB. matt91486 (talk) 00:38, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence that he has played in the I Liga and playing for Rapid II should not be sufficient to pass WP:ATHLETE. Jogurney (talk) 03:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - according to this page the only team he played for are Electromagnetica Bucheresti, who are actually Rapid Bucherest's reserve team (and that was only twice). Therefore, he actually fails WP:ATHLETE. Bettia (rawr CRUSH!) 09:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not long ago, somebody nominated a former Finance Minister of Italy for deletion, apparently questioning whether the criteria are met (fortunately, that nomination was stopped). Now, this guy (isn't he actually named Sărdescu, btw?) runs around with a ball in a squad that will most likely never make the first division in a parochial league (yes, my country's league is and will be parochial). He is 27, meaning that the chances this will change are slim to none, unless he gets picked up by a better team just before he retires. The only kind of "expansion" this article can look forward to would involve contributions from die-hard fans, relatives or the very subject of this article (the "he enjoys long walks on the beach and dancing to salsa music" kind). If this meets WP:ATHLETE (which I seriously doubt), then WP:ATHLETE needs to be reassessed. Dahn (talk) 16:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment are we actually proposing to delete on the basis of how good a footballer is? will make for nice long discussions, but not much in the way of articles. DGG (talk) 01:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply to comment No - I don't see anybody doing that. But, nota bene, "how good a football player he is", when stripped of its subjectivity and checked against rankings, does add a layer of relevance: I have no idea how "good" the subject of this article is, but he did not win any awards, never played in a notable division, is likely to end his career in what is, by all standards, the margin of a mediocre league (in sports and especially soccer, that mediocrity is easily discernable, given that exhausive rankings of championships and teams are a requirement). Now, he may be an undiscovered Ronaldinho in theory, but the key term here is "undiscovered" - wikipedia does not discover or help discover players, it simply records the achievements of players who have been discovered by others. If and when he becomes notable for something other than simply playing for a team (and that something may even be something negative, for the sake of argument), I'm willing to reconsider my vote or help restore the content. Dahn (talk) 10:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ As nom mentioned, he does pass WP:ATHLETE, and the rationale "that doesn't mean he should be included" doesn't quite sit right. Also, Wikipedia is not paper. Arakunem^Talk 19:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence that he passes WP:ATHLETE and the only matches we have confirmation of are for the second (reserve) team of Rapid. They do not play in a fully professional league as far as I can tell. Jogurney (talk) 02:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Striking my !vote, as it does seem that Rapid II is a "minor league" (to use a US term) team. He is reported on the roster of Rapid I, albeit with no games played. I still think he meets the spirit of ATHLETE, so I won't say delete. The wording of ATHLETE is somewhat ambiguous, though its current form suggests a requirement for games played. I agree with the comment above somewhere that ATHLETE needs some revisiting to establish more clarity in this area... Arakunem^Talk 16:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In addition to passing WP:ATHLETE he also meets WP:FOOTYN Nfitz (talk) 05:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's only played twice, and that was for Rapid's reserve team in a semi-professional league - how exactly does he pass WP:ATHLETE and WP:FOOTYN? Bettia (rawr CRUSH!) 13:38, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps only passed WP:ATHLETE then. Nominator has already conceded he does in the nomination, so we don't have to investigate further. Nfitz (talk) 21:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence (sources) that show he passes either WP:ATHLETE or WP:FOOTYN. I'm not sure the nominator understood the "plays in a fully professional league" requirement when he stated it passed. Jogurney (talk) 21:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete he fails WP:ATHLETE, as stated by a lot of users above - Rapid II does not play in a fully professional league. --Angelo (talk) 10:09, 21 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bishop Brigante

Non-notable rapper with no references from reliable sources; I was unable to find anything to back up claims of "several" radio hits. He won the regional stage of a major contest but neither won nor placed in the finals. His debut album has yet to be released and has only released mixtapes thus far. Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:V. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 18:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 18:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources, no assertation of notability. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The lack of citations from reliable sources in this article leads me to conclude that the article is not in compliance with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 18:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources, no refs.(Jayzee69 (talk) 22:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Alexf⁴² 14:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I was the one who improved the article from its original state, and added sources.[17] The "external links" section contained interviews from a reliable source independent from the artist that I intended to use for inline citations, but hadn't gotten to it yet. I have since added more inline citations and general refs and moved the original refs from the "external links" section to avoid confusion on the part of other editors. The current revision shows that the subject of the article currently complies with WP:MUSIC guidelines 1, 4, and 11, and soon to be 5. Maybe even #2 as well, but I have to do some digging. Don't WP:DEMOLISH the house before it's even been built! --Pwnage8 (talk) 20:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is the status of webzines such as HiphopCanada.com and Sixshot.com? They are independent of the artist, but are they considered reliable sources? (Some Wikipedia articles do use them as sources.) Anyway, I've now also added two brief but nontrivial mentions in Now magazine. Weak keep if the webzines are not considered reliable, but a definite keep if they are WP:RS. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with sixshot, but I'd consider hiphopcanada.com a sufficiently reliable source for Canadian hip hop — its creation is even mentioned in that article as a significant milestone (pardon the pun) in the development of the Canadian hip hop scene. The HHC articles also make mention of rotation on MuchMusic and participation in 106 & Park, which pass my sniff test as well. Guess I'm down with the keep. Bearcat (talk) 19:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not impressed with the accumulation of minor competitions and webzine coverage that's being used in this article. When he charts a song, then IMO he crosses the threshold into notability. PK T 21:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is governed by WP:MUSIC, not your opinion. --Pwnage8 (talk) 21:17, 21 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.

This is an archive of a closed deletion discussion for the article Jeff Eden. Please do not modify it. The result was "delete". The actual discussion is hidden from view for privacy reasons but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure), as notability has been confirmed. Thank you, one and all. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:24, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Community organizing

This article does not meet the requirements under WP:NOTE. A Wikipedia article requires multiple, verifiable facts from reliable sources. Simple Paradox 18:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are certainly specific verifiability issues here with some of the content, and extra citations would be good, but a Google Scholar search on "Community organizing" returned 325,000 hits, many on reference books devoted to the subject. It appears to be a recognised social phenomenon and the subject of nontrivial credible academic study, so I don't think WP:N is an issue. Ka renjc 21:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The books cited in the article are reliable sources. -- Eastmain (talk) 21:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eastmain, ~~but drastically trim the article of the spammy internal links~~ links cleaned. Themfromspace (talk) 23:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Citations are needed, but this is a reason to improve the article, not to delete it. As Karenjc pointed out, it is a valid subject with adequate scholarly research. The phenomenon of community organizing is not simply an election issue -- the term has existed since the 1940s and will be used for decades to come regardless of who wins in November.ThoughtsForAll 13:27, 18 September 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThoughtsForAll (talk • contribs)

Welcome to Wikipedia, ThoughtsForAll. This was quite a second edit. Regardless, it appears that my concerns have been addressed regarding the article. --Simple Paradox 21:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is definitely a notable activity where references can be found. Gary King (talk) 06:10, 19 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 Nomination Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) MrKIA11 (talk) 12:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roebling Point

Non-notable commercial section of Covington, Kentucky, very little (if any) substantial coverage in reliable sources. Exists only to promote businesses in the area (WP:NOTADVERTISING). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. -- —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some references, which I think demonstrate notability. I removed "new up and coming', so I don't think the article can be regarded as an advertisement. --Eastmain (talk) 21:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Well you've got me it'd appear; I'll withdraw if another contributor says to keep. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Does seem to meet WP:N. Nice job providing sources, Eastmain. Would like to see more expansion beyond listing the new bars in the area, though! :) Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 14:23, 17 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.

13th Child

The result was Procedural Keep. Articles have been nominated individually as no real connection between them exists. Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 05:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And also:

The 13th Alley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
152 (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
7eventy 5ive (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The 8th Plague (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
A Secret Handshake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Attic (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Attack of the Killer Hog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Aquanoids (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Alien Invasion Arizona (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Brandon Michael Vayda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Ancient (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is a group AFD for several prod contested horror movies. The origional tagged tagged all these articles for notability issues, but the prods were subsequently contested by a third user. In order to form consensus, and prevent a whole lot of AFD's, i grouped these articles (Which are quite the same) to form one big AFD. Note that i have little opinion on this matter, just following procedure. Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 18:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I admit i did not check each and every movie included, but after checking two or three in detail it seems that they fail WP:MOVIE and WP:RS. While searching reliable sources the websites found are most times stores that sell the movies. The few reviews i actually found were based on blogs/personal websites thus failing WP:MOVIE. Also, specifically examining A Secret Handshake, none of the people involved in the movie seem to have their own wikipedia page. At the same time a budget of just a hunderthousand dollars seems to indicate that these are the kind of movies that don't go far in the mainline. (But then again, that was not true for The Blair Witch Project) Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 21:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep - There's no underlying connection between any of these articles other than the fact that they were all PRODed at the same time. The notability issues are different for each and they should each be considered separately. -Chunky Rice (talk) 22:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy procedural keep. Unrelated motion picture articles must not be nominated at the same time, otherwise it creates one hell of a mess. No prejudice against renominating separately. 23skidoo (talk) 02:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep as per Chunky Rice, 23skidoo. Edward321 (talk) 04:37, 17 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 21:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The 13th Alley

Contested prod. Forwarding par prod rules (Note: Prod remover did so on various articles) Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 18:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added some reviews and references. What are the prod rules you're talking about? miniluv (talk) 18:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, reviewed in the NYT so may well be notable. Stifle (talk) 18:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources are available. Notability exists. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Seems to meet notability guidelines. —§unday [+++] 15:39, 20 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. Black Kite 20:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SunN.Y.

Non-notable rapper; appeared on a weekly cable channel music show rap contest but has released only 1 (non-hit) major label album and no hit singles. Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:V (no references from reliable sources). Has been tagged as needing sources and expansion since March 2008. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 17:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 18:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The lack of citations from reliable sources in this article leads me to conclude that the article is not in compliance with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 18:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no credible refs.(Jayzee69 (talk) 22:06, 17 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 per WP:SNOW with no one afirmatively arguing for deletion. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

152 (film)

Contested prod for which original tagger raised notability issues. Note that i have no opinion on this. Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 17:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This short horror movie is by a notable American director working in Japan. It was the official selection at 2 film festivals. Why are you trying to delete it?? miniluv (talk) 18:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As i already said this is purely procedural. If a prod if opposed and later re-added the proper cause of action is starting an AFD and not re-adding the prod. As i sayd before, i have no opinion on this. Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 19:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you have no opinion, why are you trying to delete the article? Why didn't you just leave it alone instead of starting an AFD??miniluv (talk) 19:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter that it was directed by a notable person because it has to be notable itself. About the film festivals, it would only be notable if it won an award. Schuym1 (talk) 22:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. I'm inclined to Keep, though I concur that the sourcing is an issue - I doubt very much that the article can be expanded at this point, there just isn't enough there. It's a servicable stub, but I don't know how much more can be added. Even if notability can be shown here, and I think two film festival selections is a good start, it might be simpler overall to merge this article to the director's and redirect the title. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 13:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing wrong with stubs. Schuym1 (talk) 22:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. sources are available for expansion and notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per MQS. Schuym1 (talk) 22:44, 19 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 (non-admin closure) — nomination withdrawn as stated below. Merger proposal can be found at Talk:Oddworld#Merge. MuZemike (talk) 22:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abe (Oddworld)

This character does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 17:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. TTN (talk) 17:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as usual for gam characters. Why was this be brought here in the first place? If the nom needs assistance in arguing for a merge, I'll be glad to help. DGG (talk) 00:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a deletion based on a WP:N argument; the nom did not specify the article to be merged, and I don't think any of us has an ESP-crystal ball that can read AfD noms' minds. MuZemike (talk) 04:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This is a fictional character of a video game series, the existence of which I doubt is widely known. Take only the essentials and merge it into the main Oddworld article; or if the essentials are there already, delete it altogether. DerekMBarnes (talk) 00:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, in particular, Wikipedia is not a game guide and Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Merging the article would only introduce gameguide material with original research into another article. That is, unless reliable sources can be found. MuZemike (talk) 04:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the game any content that can be sourced (which may be nothing). Stifle (talk) 18:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A basic Google search shows a lot of reliable sources. I have added some real-world information to the article from these sources and trimmed the plot and what looked like original research (I haven't played these video games, so I can't tell WP:OR for sure). The video game itself can be used as a primary source for the bare-bones plot summary. The new version of the article is here. This character is in three (maybe more?) video games, but isn't in all of the games in the Oddworld series, so there is not just one article that his information can be merged to. This article has the potential to be like the Good Article Kratos (God of War), it just needs some knowledgeable editors and research. Bláthnaid ^talk 20:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The information can be merged into the series article, as they often cover recurring elements. I'll go ahead and withdraw this and just use a merge proposal for the relevant information. TTN (talk) 20:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, I oppose a merge. The main series article covers none of the areas that are written about in this article. All the sections in this article are relevant and can be developed further. Bláthnaid ^talk 20:59, 17 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pleinair

This character does not establish notability independent of Nippon Ichi. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of a list of trivial cameos and original research. TTN (talk) 17:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. TTN (talk) 17:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Most of this stuff should probably have been merged to game, list, or series articles, but wow, delete this one. Subtrivial in-joke character. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the game not because of importance in the series, but because apparently a signature character. A sentence saying as much with a redirect would be sufficient. Everything in proportion--we certainly don't need the list of just where she appeared. DGG (talk) 00:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
but because apparently a signature character^{[citation needed]}

Most of the N1 games have a shared stock background cast for minor characters. The claim that this is a "mascot" or a "signature character" is unsourced and very likely untrue. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nippon Ichi. Original research does not pay. In addition, no sources found and contains much unnecessary trivia. However, this is a plausible search term if nothing else. MuZemike (talk) 04:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to nippon Ichi. The lack of citations from reliable sources in this article leads me to conclude that the article is not in compliance with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 18:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Takehito Harada. If you go to the artist's personal site you can see that it is decorated with depictions of Pleinair and Usagi. They're quite obviously his signature characters and if you look for the figurines [18], you can see that the copyright is in his name. Please also see This to verify that RosenQueen is an official division of NIS America. BerserkLeon (talk) 13:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC) — BerserkLeon (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Xy7 (talk) 20:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

7eventy 5ive

(Twice) Contested prod. Original tagger claimed a lack of notability. Note: I have no opinion on the validity of the prod, im just forwarding to AFD Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 17:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This movie was produced by Magic Johnson's production company. Wyclef Jean is one of the producers! It has Rutger Hauer in it! Rutger Hauer!!! Plus Aimee Garcia from that George Lopez show! miniluv (talk) 18:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The lack of citations from reliable sources in this article leads me to conclude that the article is not in compliance with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 18:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have added some references and reviews so you can verify the information in the article. I didn't create this article by the way, I just don;t think it should be deleted. miniluv (talk) 19:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - I can't find a single "smoking gun" for a keep on this one. Rotten Tomatoes has zero reviews and the press coverage seems limited to minor mention in an industry-ish blog-ish section in the Sacramento Bee. Yeah, it has a lot of big names associated with it (some who should have known better...), but it just doesn't make the grade at WP:FILM. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 20:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The AfD is gone from the article with a vague note about a "procedural keep" supposedly closing this very debate... - Mdsummermsw (talk) 20:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The procedural keep was on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/13th Child, where this article was also included. The AfD notice has been restored. Thanks, - auburnpilot talk 20:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Who did it does not matter, as notability is not inherited. However, there are plenty of sources available which speak toward notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep a Google news archive search yields sources that just scrape it through. RMHED (talk) 18:57, 21 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. The discussion on whether or not to redirect/merge can continue on the article's talk page (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Negative proof

This is a non-standard name for a well-studied fallacy, namely Argument from ignorance. A comparison of the two articles shows that Negative proof adds nothing to the common article. The fact that there are no citations in this article supports that it is not common rhetorical or logical terminology. Finally, a merge does not seem warranted since as it is, the article on Negative proof adds nothing in particular to the article on Argument from ignorance. The latter article is well-written and sourced. Phiwum (talk) 17:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge if there is anything worth merging - though it doesn't look like it from my reading. No need for deletion. Olaf Davis | Talk 21:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm satisfied with redirect as well. I doubt that "negative proof" has many hits, but redirect works. Phiwum (talk) 21:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge and in any case distinguish the content a little more. The context is usually different, and I think the article tries to explain why, but apparently not clearly enough. This is the usual phrase in scientific literature, and it means something more specific than argument from ignorance. And as for usage, why "doubt" when you can search and actually prove or disprove something: The phrase searched for as a phrase has 2720 hits in Google scholar. [19], and 887 in G Books. . Some of these occurences are in the actual titles of academic articles. DGG (talk) 00:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My Google-fu isn't as good as yours. I did a search on "Negative proof" (in quotes) at Google Scholar and I didn't see anything in the first couple of pages relevant to this particular article. I saw a hit or two that used the term to mean "Proof of non-existence", but that's the subject of a different Wikipedia article. Perhaps you could point me to an article or book you have in mind? I've taught critical thinking and introductory logic courses for years and I have never seen the term in any text. Much thanks.

For the record, by "hits", I meant that not many people search Wikipedia for "negative proof" expecting this article and hence a redirect would be useless. But if you can show me that this meaning of the term is indeed in widespread usage, I'll eat my words. When I searched google.com, I got the Wikipedia article, one personal website and some hits referring to one or both of those. Phiwum (talk) 00:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Searching scholar.google for the exact phrase "negative proof" in the title of articles did nothing to support your claim, by the way. There were 9 hits, none of which have anything to do with logical fallacy per se. (Two of the hits had to do with a law journal article which might be related.) Phiwum (talk) 00:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correction I have found one occurrence of the term "negative proof" that does not trace to Wikipedia. It occurs in a 1970 text on historians' fallacies by David Hackett Fischer. Even there, however, it is obvious that "negative proof" is just another name for "argument from ignorance". If anyone can tell me the difference, I'd like to hear it. Phiwum (talk) 20:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, can't see any reason to delete. Stifle (talk) 18:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Argument from ignorance. Nothing to merge. While there is some text outside of what would fit an "argument from ignorance", it's minor and not sourced. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 20:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see no point in article about term nobody much has heard of. One of its two lack-lustre refs says "Article has two refs, as one says "Negative Proof is a special case of the fallacy of Denying The Antecedent if we accept the additional premise that observing a phenomenon implies that it exists. ..". Suggest redirect to Denying The Antecedent, and give this as an example of same.--Philogo 22:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment Regardless of what Safalra's website says, it is much more obvious that negative proof either means the same thing as Argument from Ignorance or is a special case of it. With due respect, I suggest redirecting to Argument from ignorance. Phiwum (talk) 22:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is roughly equivalent to section 2 of the article"argument from ignorance". "Inductive use". It differs enough from the principal use because it is not considered a fallacy. [20] is an example (#7 on the Google Scholar search). And see also [21] Even from the excerpt, a proof by doing a thorough search by systematic methods and not finding it is different from a proof by ignorance--and, if done right, accepted as a reasonable method of at least preliminary enquiry. The example I've generally used for it, is that to prove there are no birds of species X reported to be found in country A, you look for material on the bird, find it reported in several sources in many countries but not this one, & for material on the birds of A, and find several good accounts of the birds, mentioning related species, but not this. It's not a fallacy exactly, though of course not a formal proof. (There are many articles talking about a negative proof in mathematics, but I am unable to judge whether or not its the same thing.) There's a difference between "We've never seen it happen," and "If it would have happened, we can show we would have known". This isn't formal logic, but informal use, which also belongs in Wikipedia, DGG (talk) 16:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is that what the article is about? It says it's about a logical fallacy, but what you're discussing is evidently not a fallacy. (By the way, your reference to the Organizational Ignorance article clearly identifies "reasoning from ignorance" as the same thing as "negative proof based reasoning" and uses the "from ignorance" terminology almost exclusively, so does not serve to show there's a difference. I can't read your second reference, I'm sorry to say.) So, two issues remain: what you call "negative proof" is not really what the article discusses and the difference between "negative proof" and "argument from ignorance" still has no reliable sources. You say the difference is that negative proof involves a search for evidence while argument from ignorance does not (or need not?). Can you find a reference distinguishing the two thus? Then perhaps the article on negative proof could be re-written (or included as a special case of argument from ignorance) to reflect this difference. Thanks in any case for the clarification. Phiwum (talk) 16:42, 18 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. Xy7 (talk) 20:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Gracie Diet

Unencyclopedic how-to, unreferenced, non-notable? TheMolecularMan (talk) 16:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect – to Carlson Gracie. Typically I would agree with the nominator. However, with the growing popularity of the The Ultimate Fighter and the Gracies' popularity and dominance in the sport I believe a merge and redirect to the founder’s page is appropriate. ShoesssS ^Talk 16:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I could understand that, if the article is improved to resemble encyclopedic content fit for merging, and if it properly cites secondary sources to establish notability. As it is now, I think it's more suitable for deletion. If it merits inclusion at the main article (which has problems of its own), probably best to start from scratch. TheMolecularMan (talk) 16:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – An article that needs help in style – content – rewording/writing and or citing is not a reason for a proposed deletion. It is an article that needs a prod tag placed on it not an AFD. My personal opinion is that it is far easier to propose for deletion, for many, than it is to improve. Why not take at shot at helping the piece rather than killing the prose. ShoesssS ^Talk 02:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I opted for AfD (following a contested PROD) because it contained no indication of notability and virtually no encyclopedic content. If that changes, we can of course reassess. TheMolecularMan (talk) 02:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Say Goodnight, Gracie Recommending deletion due to problems with WP:RS and WP:V. Also, some of the text in the article appears to have been lifted verbatim from the web site devoted to the subject: [22]. Ecoleetage (talk) 03:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The lack of citations from reliable sources in this article leads me to conclude that the article is not in compliance with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 19:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Not notable. More pressing, though, is the copyright violation. Tagged for speedy. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 19:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Tag removed and replaced with copy-vio tag so this discussion can proceed as to if the article should exist at all. Ian¹³ /t 19:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - No need to force process. If it is a copyvio we just speedily delete it. If the author recreates a copyvio, we just speedily delete that. The notability of a hypothetical article that isn't a copyvio isn't too germane. Protonk (talk) 04:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It doesn't appear to meet the g-12 requirements (though I disagree), so I apologize for reverting User:Ian13 above. I am still not convinced that the article is independently notable. A merge rather than delete is fine too. Protonk (talk) 15:57, 21 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. Stifle (talk) 00:11, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pilot (Fringe)

Unnotable pilot episode of a series that has only aired a single episode. Adds absolutely nothing that is not already in the main article, except an excessively long plot in violation of WP:MOSTV. This article completely fails WP:WAF, WP:PLOT, WP:N, and WP:EPISODE. The pilot has not received significant coverage apart from the series as a whole (such as it is with the series being all of two episodes) and the main article is barely above a stub, negating claims of it being a "spin out". It being the "most expensive pilot" made to date does not make it notable. That's a temporary notability and by itself is not that significant. Note: I withdrew the original AfD as it focused more on dealing with the two articles than on the actual issues of whether either article should exist. Both articles have since been merged, and the single article is now the focus of this AfD. The original participants of the first AfD have been notified to allow them to revisit the issue with the confusion out of the way. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose (Keep) - 1. It's episode of one of the most publicised series of the season, and is being covered by majority of media. 2. The article is in its nascent needs time to be developed, it'd to premature to say that the notability is temporary, considering the very fact that the series has barely started. 3. The series has been signed on by multiple episodes, as can be confirmed from http://foxflash.com/ If I'm allowed to mention this here, even Lost's pilot was considered for a possible AfD at one stage. It went on to become GA nominee. LeaveSleaves (talk) 16:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE Through conversations with LeaveSleaves on his talk page, and with understanding his discussion immediately above this note, it must be clarified that his "Strong Oppose" is a "Keep". His is opposed to the deletion, not the article. Schmidt, ^MICHAELQ. 05:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC) Struck. Been handled. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

None of that make it notable. Being an episode of a notable series has already been well established to not make it notable. The notability of the series doesn't convey to the episode, it must have notability by its own significant coverage. And being signed for multiple episodes again speaks to the series, not the episode alone. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect, but you should feel free to suppy the specific wording of that interpretation, if you want from our policies and guidelines, Collectonian. As have been pointed out to you no less than a half-dozen times, the article is notable in that it is the most expensive pilot episode in television history (displacing another one of Abrams' creations, Lost). Is this refusing to get the point, or what?- Hexhand (talk) 16:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is NOT notable for being the most expensive pilot episode in television history. That is the point. That is not a criteria in WP:N nor WP:EPISODE. Significant coverage of the pilot itself is, which no one has actually provided beyond the spattering of reviews. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As more than a few sources speak directly to the pilot episode (and not the series), that coveres the problems of both notability and wp:episode. To the latter criteria, the process has been followed: there is the series article, the list of episodes article and the episode article. The article isn't - and to my assessment never has been - in-universe. Was there some other part of this criteria you were addressing? - Hexhand (talk) 04:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep (no merge) - for the reasons noted above by LeavesSleaves and myself in both this and the previously aborted AfD nom'd by the same user. - Hexhand (talk) 16:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a note to reviewing admins, Hexhand attemped to deliberately redirect AfD discussion to the closed AfD by changing the template on the page.[23] -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I most certainly did not. - Hexhand (talk) 17:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~Delete~~ - Looking at the sources I only see one that is about this episode. The rest are about the series. There is no mention in the article about it being the most expensive pilot. Likewise, the ghits are mostly about the series and I see little discussion on the pilot other than it was leaked on the internet before airing. Delete as non-notable episode. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 17:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's for notability. The reviews for episode: [24], [25] (might require free login), [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32]. Each of the reviews discuss plotline, and for obvious reasons the series, since it's first episode and would be a prelude to how the series would develop. Also some of the interviews discussing development [33], [34], [35].

Here's another one (from Popular Mechanics). - Hexhand (talk) 17:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

works for me. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 17:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep multiple reliable independent non-trivial sources prove notability. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable per sources. Closing admin should take into consideration the multiple keep arguments in the aborted AFD in the event these editors are not able to restate their case. 23skidoo (talk) 17:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but Merge to Fringe (TV series). Let's head this off at the pass... as each subsequent episode will have fans creating articles episode by episode and we'll be back at AfD again and again. The pilot is THE PILOT, and should thus head the (soon-to-be) later list of episodes that will (inevitably) wish to have their own articles. Keeping the information all together is the most encyclopedic way to handle this. The synopsis should then be trimmed accordingly after the merge. Precedent exists on Wikipedia for this action... and should molify both keeps and delete. Collectonion is correct that there is not enough individual coverage for this specific pilot episode, as most of the listed sources are not pilot-specific, but there is for the series as a whole, and that's where this one belongs. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Fringe episodes might be a better redirect but based on the sources mentioned above, especially the popular mechanics article that discusses the realism (or lack of), I think it now merits its own article. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 17:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I had thought about a redirect to that barren list... but the article has a lot of pilot-specific information that could not then be included. By merging to the series in a section about the show's beginnings, we keep the informations which lead naturally into the article about the series itself. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with that is that the series article becomes all about the pilot, which has two handfuls of citations of its own. Merging the pilot article into the series article bloats the latter with info specific to the pilot. - Hexhand (talk) 19:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable enough. Needs work but doesn't need to be deleted. --Quartermaster (talk) 18:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above, appears to be notable enough. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 18:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to be notable. rootology (C)(T) 23:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As in the last AfD, I agree with Collectonian that the summary needs to be shortened. I don't have as much of a problem with individual articles on pilot episodes, so I don't necessarily have a problem with this article, as it does seem to receive some note. That said, it should be made clear that if/when this AfD is closed as keep, the decision is absolutely not a pass to create more episode articles without, at the very least, the same quality of coverage and sources. Interested editors should instead devote time to editing and building a neutral, verified and original research-free list of episodes page. As a side note to something brought up in the past AfD, Image:Fringe leaf.jpg almost certainly does not have a valid rationale; the image has nothing directly to do with the episode, and therefore does not meet NFCC. seresin ( ¡? ) 23:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Was that image part of the pilot or its promotion? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, it's a pain in the tucchus to find responses in the edit page! The image was part of the promotion. As the image is the first of several making up the mythology of the series (similar to Lost, Heroes and a few others which escape me at this late hour). Maybe I am misinterpreting image usage here, but if the image is expressly discussed in the article, then it serves us well to display that image, so as to coordinate better with the text. - Hexhand (talk) 04:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:EPISODE applies if the article meets notability standards. This particular episode does have enough independent coverage on the episode since it was famous for being so expensive, so my opinion is that it meets the notability criteria. My comments don't necessarily apply to subsequent series episodes. I appreciate that I was notified as a commenter in the previous AFD discussion! Royal broil 00:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and MergeLeave a redirect in place and merge with main series article. Note folks, this is not a delete. This pilot is not notable in itself. An article on every episode of a TV series is not justified and this is such a case. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: We aren't talking about seeking out an article for every episode (as would appear to be the mad goal of the Doctor Who wikiproject), Rlevse. We are talking about this pilot article. The pilot article is the introduction to the program; not every pilot is worthwhile (read: notable), but this one seems to have garnered a lot more specific comment than, say, G-Force or Joey. We aren't here to determine what's good or bad tv; if we think its notable (and it appears it is), it gets an article. - Hexhand (talk) 04:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Strong Keep~~ Per my multiple arguments above. LeaveSleaves (talk) 01:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Striking double vote, you've already voted "strong oppose" to the delete/merge suggestion above. Dreadstar † 03:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Fringe (TV Series), this is a single episode in a new series, and does not seem at all notable on its own, Wikipedia does not have articles on every single pilot. Per Wikipedia:EPISODE, I do not see any "out of universe context" or content that shows the work's "achievement, impact or historical significance"...as a matter of fact, it appears to be somewhat derivative of The X-Files. Even per the article, the pilot received only "mixed" reviews, most of them seeming to be negative. What exactly is so notable about this particular pilot? Even if it is indeed "the most expensive pilot produced" to date, this is insufficient to establish notability. Dreadstar † 02:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment / Question Is it "most expensive" of all time, when reflecting adjustments for inflation compared to all pilots done anywhere at any time? And no matter the answer, I have yet to see a source that shows that throwing money at something as making that something notable... and I am looking. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking into that, I was wondering about it too. And if it is true, then the second paragraph of the Pilot (Lost) lead section needs to be adjusted in this regard as well. Dreadstar † 03:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, were you asking for a citation where it has been called the most expensive television pilot ever made? There are two such citations in the article itself. As for the most expensive in adjusted dollars, I don't think that the assessments of such were taking a encompassing approach. Remember, the criteria for inclusion is verifiability, not truth.

And I was looking at the Lost series and pilot articles as well. No one is saying that this fact all by itself establishes notability, but there are enough citable references to the pilot (not just the series) that allow us to expand such an article with greater ease than other pilot episode articles. I think that's a good thing, right? - Hexhand (talk) 04:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, that is an important question. Sayings its the "most expensive" if that's not including inflation means it is only the "most expensive" within its own time, rather than over all. Its much like with film articles. We don't call a film the top grossing film of all time without counting for inflation first. However, in the absence of any sources contradicting the claim, I think we have to take it at face value. That said, I still do not think it establishes any notability to the episode at all, it is just an interesting element of the series that it has a high budget (though not the highest budget ever overall, an honor belonging to one of CBS's new series). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, we aren't using the expense as the sole guiding light of notability, Collectonian; its just the cherry on the notability cake. There are enough reviewers weighing in specifically on the pilot itself (not just the series). - Hexhand (talk) 04:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as the reviews and production section seem to concern the pilot episode, not the whole series. It is the series article that needs work, which it will get as the show continues. –thedemonhog talk • edits 06:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and do not merge The coverage of this episode individually in reliable sources shown in the production, ratings and reception sections establishes it's notability with coverage which is not in universe. To quote from WP:Episode episodes should have coverage of 'achievements, impact or historical significance'. The ratings and reception sections clearly show this - it does not matter whether this impact is positive, negative or mixed, it just has to show there is an impact. This coverage is far better shown in a single article than in an article on the list of episodes or the series article where it would either give undue weight to the pilot episode or we would lose some good content. Davewild (talk) 06:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per comments above. -- Chuq (talk) 11:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per comments above. Also is expected to evolve and Pilot will be significant in its own right. KymFarnik (talk) 11:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the page satisfies the different notability requirements to exist. though it needs serious clean up (but I'll put that on the article talk page). BIGNOLE (Contact me) 12:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge and redirect. Episodecruft is a plague, the encyclopaedic content of this is that the pilot was a pilot for the series, the plot summary / episode guide stuff belongs on a fan-wiki somewhere. The fact that this was premiered only days ago is a strong indication that we have no idea of proper historical significance yet, obsessive interest generated by hype is not of any use to us. It's very hard to say that the pilot is significant indpeendent of the series because at this point the pilot pretty much is the series. Guy (Help!) 13:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That doesn't appear to be a very neutral evaluation of the article, Guy. If you wish to alter our policy on what media we prefer to not have articles on, The place to do that is over yonder. My understanding of AfD is to evaluate the merits of the article nominated, not its role as a contributing factor in the Decline of Western Civ. :) - Hexhand (talk) 15:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. I personally don't like the fact that we have an article for every episode of every TV series, but it's now a fact and there is no reason why this series should be treated any differently. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't a valid speedy keep reason, nor is it a "fact" that we have an article for every episode of every TV series. Many do not have them, and many that did have them have had them merged to episode lists. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. The only ones that tend to stand as articles are those with commentary outside the general scope of the series like, for example, this one. - Hexhand (talk) 15:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect. It's a TV series with one episode aired so far, way too early to talk about historical significance that would justify separate episode articles.--Boffob (talk) 18:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Respectfully, the aspect of "historical significance" as it relates to notability is no longer considered consensus, and really can't/shouldn't be used as a criterion for retention or deletion. What is relevant are the general criteria used as per WP:NOTE:

"Significant coverage" - there are at least six articles (conservatively speaking) that discuss this article's subject matter in-depth (and not just the series). There are likely a lot more sources to be found.
"Reliable" - the aforementioned sources have editorial integrity, meet our WP:V criteria, and are generally available.
"Sources" - the sources are all secondary sources.
"Independent of the subject" - practically all of the sources used for the article are from outside the Fox media machine (self publicity as in info derived from the website for the program, etc.).
"Presumed" - the substantive coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption of notability, and does not violate what Wikipedia is NOT. - Hexhand (talk) 18:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And while a minor point, there have been two episodes broadcast, not just one. Typically, a slate of 9-23 episodes are ordered for shows, with less for new programs and more for more established ones. - Hexhand (talk) 18:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ample real-world reliable and verifiable sources about the episode to satisfy the Wikipedia:Notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 19:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, the other items that have been stated to raise the notability of this particular Pilot above others are the number of reviews and the ratings.

Ratings, if we look at the ratings, the article says the pilot had 9.13 million viewers, this seems to be low to try and establish notability with, for instance the rating for the pilot of Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles was over twice that number at 18.36 million viewers, even dedicated Fringe bloggers said the ratings weren't "spectacular, only good". According to another site, there was also disappointment over the ratings, which came in a distant second to America's Got Talent, which scored 10.537 and 12.596 million viewers and wasn't even a brand new purpotedly "notable" pilot. Virtually every comment I've read has expressed some range of disappointment rather than the elation or utter surprised disappointment that would lead to a conclusion that the ratings had "impact" or "historical significance".
Reviews, virtually every pilot is reviewed, that's the standard of the industry. There seems to be nothing outstanding, either positive or negative, about the reviews or ratings on this show that would support any notable "historical significance, achievements, or impact" this pilot made. If it later wins awards, and shows some kind of impact and any historical significance in the future, then we can consider creating a stand-alone article for this pilot.
If, as some of the posters above have suggested, the parent Series article Fringe (TV Series) is lacking, then the merger seems an even better idea, to improve the quality of the parent - or should the parent article be deleted? Makes no sense.
I'd also like to know what would make any TV pilot non-notable? That no one reviews it? Does that happen? That it doesn't meet some nebulous Nielson threshold? By some of the logic above, then every single pilot should have its own article...unless there are pilots that aren't reviewed or receive a zero Nielson rating..which actually seems notable unto itself...this situation is very odd and needs some clarification. Dreadstar † 21:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would support keeping any such episode that meets the two standards of firstly the generally accepted main Notability Guideline - WP:Notability - i.e. significant coverage in reliable sources about that episode itself, and secondly that it has coverage of the episode that is not all in universe, thus not failing WP:NOT#PLOT - i.e. the content is not just the plot of the episode. Per WP:NOT#PAPER if articles can be written at a reasonable length without failing any of our content policies and guidelines there is no reason why we should not do so. So if most pilot episodes can get this amount of coverage then yes we should have articles on them. Davewild (talk) 21:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)In response to Dreadstar's concerns, I've responded in kind below. I would agree with him in that the criteria of notability seem (at least to me) to sometimes have been applied irregularily, or using some elitism. I've noticed an exceptional amount of resistance to television episodic articles, most notably in the Doctor Who-related articles, where articles are attacked via IfD debates. As articles without images have a more difficult time being promoted to GA and FA, this presents a fairly clear prejudice towards these sorts of articles. I am not necessarily seeing that here, but illuminating the terrain upon which we find ourselves seems prudent. Kicking the notability of an article because it is a television article is not neutral. That said, allow me to address Dreadstar's points:

Re: Reviews - Dreadstar appears to be advocating an approach - and making a distinction - that we do not apply to other media. If a film is released (or even if it is only released via the internet, like 2 Girls 1 Cup), an article is usually written about it, even if the film is dreadful is worse than Highlander II or Killer Tomatoes Eat France. No one calls for such to be deleted because of bad reviews. As for the quoting of "historical significance (WP:SIGN), achievements, or impact", I've already pointed out that that particular aspect of notability has failed to achieve a consensus; we don't evaluate by that criteria.
Re: "merging" - what actually makes little sense sense is to merge the pilot article into the series article, as the citations used in the pilot relate specifically to the pilot, and not necessarily the series. Improvement to the series article would likely occur, either by association to a well-written episode article or greater interest generated through the season or by the episodic article itself. No one is advocating removing the series article (though, because it is worse than the current episode article, it begs the question as to why it hasn't been placed on the altar of AfD as well). Literary equalism doesn't really work; we don't rob one article to benefit another, as it at best dilutes the encyclopedic breadth and at worst robs us of two potentially Good or Featured articles.
Re: non-notable confusion - As I mentioned in my prefacing remarks, I agree that there seems to be a lot of wiggle room in what some people think is encyclopedic and what is not. Some want to make every episode of every tv series an article (like Doctor Who or Battlestar Galactica), while others kill episode articles at every opportunity. The middle ground would seem to be to allow those articles which initiate a television series, are unusual in some way, or some other criteria that I am sure someone else will bring up after I hit ENTER.

The inescapable part of this argument is that the article being nominated for deletion isn't poorly written, grossly inaccurate or deceptive, or fancruft. It fulfills the criteria of most of our articles written. Why are episode articles - and pointedly, this article - being singled out for AfD? The answer, I suspect, lies outside of whether this article's actual merits and flaws. - Hexhand (talk) 22:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I too am baffled by the criteria that Dreadstar is trying to use to establish notability. The Wikipedia:Notability standard is rather clear in defining a topic as notable if it "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". There is nothing here about how high ratings are or if some other show gets more viewers. There is nothing about the coverage received being positive. There is no requirement that a parent article be better or more comprehensive than the child, all the less relevant as the series progresses and more about the overall story arc is available. What would make any TV pilot non-notable? The lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. That the show is a ripoff derivative of some other program is also moot. The notability standard is rather flexible in handling all of these circumstances, if we would only agree to abide by what it says. Alansohn (talk) 22:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response, the answer to all the objections and "bafflement" in the posts above is simple, merely merge the information on the content of this pilot article into the main article about the show itself: Fringe (TV Series). There's no great mystery here. Unless all television pilots deserve their own articles, there's nothing so outstanding about this particular pilot to merit a stand-alone article separate from the series article. Dreadstar † 02:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not as experienced as some (or may be most) of the editors here, but the time I've been around I've seen a number of instances when an episode was merged with its parent articles, based squarely on notability conditions. But considering that most of the notability conditions are satisfied here, is the call of merge simply based on a paranoia of creation of more articles such as these? Because, I don't see how encouraging it is to suppress an article that has greatly expanded on number of areas. Not just the areas such as reviews and reception as it was at the start of this discussion but also in the area of production information. And as I see it, this isn't a discussion on validation of individual articles for series pilots, but this particular pilot only. LeaveSleaves (talk) 04:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) As was noted before by myself and others, the merge would be largely ineffective, as the citations in the pilot article refer specifically to the pilot and not to the series. Other stuff exists, Dreadstar; I don't recall anyone getting absolutist, and demanding that all tv pilots be made into articles; we're talking about this one. If there are good sources and plenty of them for something interesting, then of course we should write an article about them. "(T)here's nothing so outstanding about this article" is more of a personal assessment. There are notable sources that think it had some value.

Let's apply your criteria to a few other articles: how about Search, Probe (Pilot), Syzygy Darklock, Angel Tompkins or Superpup. Collectively having less than four usable references between these five articles, they are practically stubs, and don't warrant articles at all, according to your criteria.

These articles might sound familiar to you, Dreadstar; you created them.

And yet, you seem to think that a well-documented, well-arranged article doesn't deserve its own article. You have clearly benefited from the idea that other stuff exists - clearly, you felt the pilot for Probe was notable enough to be an article, so it begs the question as to why others cannot benefit as well. - Hexhand (talk) 04:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect Agree Jzg. Concern is not whether the article is well written or not, but what is notability in terms of television. A pilot become absorbed into the series immediately, becomes part of the series. Notability, seems to me has to be considered over time. What allows the pilot to reemerge again as memorable, to distinguish itself from all other episodes in the series? We can't include every pilot in Wikipedia as memorable. In time, if a pilot should become extraordinary, well that's another discussion. As an aside, does this discussion have to get personal?(olive (talk) 13:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

No, it doesn't. I was simply pointing out that the criteria determining what deserves to have an article and what does not appears to be somewhat subjective, and Dreadstar's assessments seemed contradictory. In retrospect, I guess it did look like I was kicking him (who knows - after the DRV mess he created, it might have been a little pointed), so I apologize for the fervor but not the example.

And for the nth time, no one is talking about including every pilot as memorable. I think this is coming up repeatedly either due to a discounting of television episode articles or a pedestaling of them - both opinions being essentially half-baked. Each article's inclusion in the wikipedia is on a case-by-case basis, but the point is that Other Stuff Exists. There is just and clear consideration that this well-cited article deserves to remain. As HitBull pointed out below, we have many, many episodic articles that are worse off. That this one is somewhat better than the series article is something that should be applauded, and used as an example in improving the article, not robbing Peter to pay Paul. As per NOTPAPER, we are not constrained by space, so there is space for both a series article as well as a pilot article. - Hexhand (talk) 15:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems like a perfectly good article, with coverage beyond a simple plot summary and numerous citations from reliable sources. I wish all TV articles were this nice. And frankly, the idea that it had "only" nine-million viewers is laughable - we have articles for movies that didn't play in front of half that many people. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean this in a literal sense. The pilot metaphorically, becomes part of the story/plotline as the series unfolds, a continuum, if the story unfolds. If not, yes, it will hopefully stand alone. Notability relies on time to distinguish what will have some staying powering terms of something being memorable . Otherwise, standards need to established for this area. I don't see Wikipedia policy/ guidelines as overarching enough to deal with this, and perhaps need amendments. Just a thought. Yeah, maybe "kicking" should be reserved for football :o) (olive (talk) 16:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I may have misunderstood this comment: "No, it doesn't." Sorry if I seemed to be beating a dead...or kicking a guy...or kicking a dead....Ahhh, well you know what I mean...(olive (talk) 16:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Kicking, as in kicking a guy for vehemently opposing the same sort of thing he was doing himself. Sorry if I was unclear. - Hexhand (talk) 19:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhh... No. "Kicking" anyone is uncivil, and uncivilized even metaphorically. I was proposing that this discussion not be personal. Everyone has an opinion and those opinions must be respected. NO one has the right to decide why or how someone argues for a particular point ... just deal with the point.(olive (talk) 21:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Agreed; kicking (or rather, insulting) is. Pointing out a contradictory position isn't, and shouldn't be seen as such. I think we have a right to expect a consistent argument, and we weren't being presented with one. The argument being presented by Dreadstar was that there is no notability for this article, stating that we don't need pilot episode articles. However, he created and maintains one himself, and it has far less notability (and citations) than this one. I didn't say Dreadstar was stinky or anything; I said his argument was not genuine, and pointed out why. - Hexhand (talk) 22:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how I got into this but .... whomever it is...saying an argument is not genuine is an opinion. We have no right to make such opinions more concrete by posting them as if they are factual. Doing so can create a slur on another's personality This is your opinion nothing more, and this is a discussion on a TV pilot for heaven's sake ... not worth uncivil comments. (olive (talk) 01:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

This will be my last post on this aspect of the discussion. I'm not saying that Dreadstar isn't entitled to a position or the right to state it. I am saying that if it is contradictory to what he practices himself (and that isn't opinion - it has been clearly delineated), I or anyone else is entitled to point that out. These discussions (are supposed to) reflect not only reflect the emergence/presence of a consensus, but to weigh the arguments being presented. I believe that when one participant doesn't practice what they preach, it dilutes the strength of that position. Again, Dreadstar seems like a nice fellow who made a small error in closing the original AfD too soon and misinterpreting policy, and was good enough to allow it to be relisted. His actions do not match his wortds offered here. Nothing more and nothing less than that. - Hexhand (talk) 16:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge It has like two episodes out, right? And this is the first, right? And there is an article on the series, right? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 18:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Martin, can you explain how this article meets merge criteria? I am looking at WP:MERGE, and the criteria reasoning for merging (Duplicate, Overlap, Text and Context) hasn't been met. The pilot is not the series, and the series is not the pilot. - Hexhand (talk) 16:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Hexhand. Not a fair content dispute. Ottre 02:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Tons of other shows have individual pages for their episodes, cough lost cough, why not this one too? Fafnir665 (talk) 17:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ANI posting An ANI thread related to this afd has been posted: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Hexhand — Rlevse • Talk • 20:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. it has a significant amount of production and reception content, why should it be deleted? -- Matthew R Dunn (talk) 23:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- PS, personally, I think that whoever said that it isn't notable is laughable, since something made with the help of JJ Abrams (who did Lost and Alias, which is certainly notable), why should this be otherwise. -- Matthew R Dunn (talk) 23:50, 20 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MicroMuse

An online community, that doesn't appear to meet our present notability standards. Note: there was a "Micromuse Inc." that is company that was acquired by IBM last year, that WAS notable, but is it not THIS MicroMuse (not the naming differences). That IBM acquisition is now just a division of their Tivoli product line. This MicroMuse is a MUD that was started in the 1990s. Not one article links to MicroMuse, as seen here. The linked Wired article here as a source doesn't mention "MicroMuse" or "MicroMUSE", or any of the people associated with this MUD. This isn't a reliable source either. I'm not seeing if they are meeting our present WP:Notability requirements so wanted to put it up for review. rootology (C)(T) 15:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC) rootology (C)(T) 15:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —rootology (C)(T) 15:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —rootology (C)(T) 15:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. —rootology (C)(T) 15:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —rootology (C)(T) 15:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 18:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — One reference link is dead, and the other consists of a trivial mention at best. In other words, no establishment of notability via verifiable secondary sources; fails WP:CORP. MuZemike (talk) 19:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The lack of citations from reliable sources in this article leads me to conclude that the article is not in compliance with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 19:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, in part due to a lack of sources and also because I can't find independent verification of it winning a NII award; best I could find was a list of finalists that year which MicroMuse is not on, although BBN Technologies is mentioned in both the MUSE's posted awards letter and the list of sponsors. Nifboy (talk) 23:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep. The article just needs some work. If Wikipedia deletes it, it is welcome at Wikiversity. --JWSurf (talk) 01:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I fixed the link to the Wired ref so that it now points to the correct page that mentions the subject of the article. Please see these refs which could be used to improve the article:

John Markoff, "The Keyboard Becomes a Hangout For a Computer-Savvy Generation," The New York Times, Page 1, August 31, 1993.
Time magazine: Ellen Germain, "In the Jungle of the MUD," Time Magazine, Sep 13, 1993.
Atlantic Monthly: Jacques Leslie, "MUDroom," The Atlantic Monthly, Sep 1993.
Book by Howard Rheingold: Howard Rheingold, The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier, a William Patrick Book, Addison-Wesley, New York, 1993. 325 pages. ISBN 0-201-60870-7.
Popular Science: Arthur Fisher, "The End of School?", Popular Science, January 1994.
Anna Duval Smith : Problems of Conflict Management in Virtual Communities, 1997 (Chapter 6 in Communities in Cyberspace, edited by Marc A. Smith and Peter Kollock, Routledge Press, 1998.

--mikeu (talk) 02:07, 21 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 redirect to Linkin Park. Per clear consensus below and obvious target. (non-admin closure) Protonk (talk) 06:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Farrell

Not notable independent of band, per WP:MUSIC. Mdsummermsw (talk) 15:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect to Linkin Park. Any verifiable info can be merged to the band's article. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep based on the size of Linkin Park and the issue of merging into such a large article. A merge is correct based on the WP:MUSIC guidelines. I see nothing independent of the band to support his individual notability. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 17:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect what little information is verifiable to Linkin Park per TenPoundHammer. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 18:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect to Linkin Park. Stifle (talk) 19:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Linkin Park; no notability outside of that band. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 19:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as every band member deserves an article. DF2799, 16 September 2008, 4:47 —Preceding unsigned comment added by DF2799 (talk • contribs) 23:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC) — DF2799 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment Notability is not inherited. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 09:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:23, 18 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 16:04, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DTV (Deakin TV)

Non-notable student organization. No independent coverage. Mdsummermsw (talk) 15:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 16:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NOTE. Student TV club at university that produces its own shows, which are shown on a local community-access TV station. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 18:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The lack of citations from reliable sources in this article leads me to conclude that the article is not in compliance with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 19:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was unable to find reliable sources to indicate notability for this subject. --Stormbay (talk) 22:51, 19 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 21:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amelle Berrabah

Contested redirect. Not notable independent of group, per WP:MUSIC. Mdsummermsw (talk) 14:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I believe she meets notability under WP:BIO if not that of WP:MUSIC. Even though the former is linked through too, it is specific to musical output, but here her notability outsite of the Sugababes hinges on personal life and she is certainly well known enough outside of the band to warrant inclusion. Thedarxide (talk) 17:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:BIO because she has been written about in reliable sources for her actions outside the group. [36] [37] [38] [39] [40]. She also gets interviewed in women's magazines. Sure, she wouldn't be written about if she wasn't in the group, but she is still notable. Bláthnaid ^talk 20:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Bláthnaid ^talk 20:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a million people should be removed before her. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.252.120 (talk) 04:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong, possibly speedy keep. The individual members of similar groups like Girls Aloud, Destiny's Child, TLC, and the Spice Girls all have individual articles. The nomination seems badly thought-out and I encourage its withdrawal. Stifle (talk) 18:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The reason being presented to keep this article is significant coverage independent of the group. That the members of other groups might have articles is irrelevent. They might exist for other reasons, like notable solo careers (Kelly_Rowland#Albums, Beyoncé_Knowles#Solo, Michelle_Williams_(singer)#Albums, Lisa_Lopes#Solo_album, etc.). While I disagree that the coverage on her independent of the band meets the threshhold of WP:MUSIC, I do not dispute the criteria. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 21:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources indicate notability. Regardless of meeting WP:MUSIC, meets WP:BIO based on sources. Arakunem^Talk 19:34, 19 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. No major notability established. Only notability is an award won in the 8th grade, and notations to productions in high school. Link to a MySpace profile. seicer | talk | contribs 17:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Caleb Synan

Notability not established Tom B (talk) 14:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Probably a teenager's vanity page, per [41]: "Caleb Synan is a sixteen year old film buff who hopes one day to be a director." justinfr (talk/contribs) 14:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. From the article, my impression is that the subject is training to become an actor, and he may well be talented, already involoved in movie making. However, he has not yet made any achievements which give him the fame and attention which would make him encyclopedicly notable per WP:BIO at this point in time, something reflected by the lack of media coverage on the subject. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 17:21, 16 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) 00:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Ballads (Mariah Carey album)

I have searched for this and the only info I have found is on fan sites and nothing that is offical. Also the information that was found doesn't even match up with the info on Wikipedia. CRocka05 (talk) 14:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 17:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this speculation. Cliff smith ^talk 17:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete According to the authors of the article, this reference is supposed to provide proof of this album's release in October 2008 but it's only a Q&A type blog that mentions a possible compilation of a different name being released in 2009. Google searches turn up nothing in trying to come up with any proof that such an album is slated to be released or even recorded. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 20:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NOTCRYSTAL. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 09:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSIC#Albums and WP:V. Only reliable source (a Billboard column) regards an album called Love Songs with a Feb 09 release date. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 20:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Added ref from play.com is good enough as a reference but still does not address notability requirements. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 13:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:MUSIC#Albums, WP:V and a splash of WP:CRYSTAL. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep: The album and the release date and the track listing confirmed on Mariah Carey's official website [42] Hotcircus (talk) 14:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC) — Hotcircus (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: Hotcircus (talk · contribs) is a sockpuppet of banned User:Brexx. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 14:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:CRYSTAL. Undead Warrior (talk) 05:13, 19 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. I microwaved this article into oblivion. seicer | talk | contribs 17:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Microwave assault

Nonsense: "Unfortunately, this technology has fallen into the hands of diabolical murderers with gang ideology who are now using these microwave systems to harass and kill their fellow human beings. Victims are microwaved again and again, and are usually harassed with other weapons as well and followed step for step from the roof of their dwellings." Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Seems like complete nonsense --Banime (talk) 14:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note — I've never seen an article tagged like that before! MuZemike (talk) 14:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pure conspiracy theory nonsense. justinfr (talk/contribs) 15:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this reads more like an essay than an encylopedic article, and the benefits of having this subject on Wikipedia are dubious to say the least. Bettia (rawr CRUSH!) 15:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as some kind of ridiculousness with no reliable sourcing. -FrankTobia (talk) 15:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as conspiracyhysteriahoaxcruft. Jclemens (talk) 17:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at first I thought there was some legit stuff in there, then I noticed the references all go back to the same .de site. No good sources to support notability. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 17:27, 16 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 Redirect to E=MC². Can be broken back out once the single releases and becomes notable. Stifle (talk) 14:19, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Migrate (song)

The Song is not going to be a single, so it does not need a page on wikipedia CRocka05 (talk) 13:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CRocka05 (talk) 20:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to album: To be honest, the whole thing's speculative at this point. We have confirmation from Billboard and Amazon that a single of some sort (12"/vinyl) will be released, but that's no indication of an actual single release. And then we have apparent confirmation that said release is cancelled, via a blog. Either way, there's no confirmation that this will be fully released and/or promoted in any way. If/when it is released, the redirect can easily be undone. SKS2K6 (talk) 15:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Why don't we actually wait until September 30 before we make conclusions like that? Both Billboard and Amazon say it's going to be a single, so it's still entirely likely it can happen. If it turns out Migrate isn't going to be a single, then the page should just be scrapped entirely. Edit: I see the sources saying the single was scrapped. That would be all fine and dandy if they weren't from blogs. AcroX 23:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. It's charted and it's referenced. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:

Notability aside, a separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album.

It charted for one week (when the album was first released) and hasn't charted since then. Also, is a 12" vinyl single release enough to flesh out an article? If the song never gets released as a proper promoted single, there won't be any additional information beyond what is already on the page. Morever, it's still not confirmed whether this will be the single, or if "I'm That Chick" will be the single, or if there will be no more singles from the album. Her record company nor her official website have stated anything regarding a possible followup single. SKS2K6 (talk) 20:12, 18 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. Mr.Z-man 04:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indie (culture)

It is just original research. No references are provided that prove there is a specific culture called indie. The only section with any substance is music, which has its own article anyway. No evidence is provided to show that indie music, fashion, and film are somehow connected under one umbrella called indie culture. Spylab (talk) 13:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I wholeheartedly agree. This is one of a number of examples of articles about supposed "cultures" and "scenes" known only to those who obsess over them and, hence, write articles about them. Delete with prejudice. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 17:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Indie disambiguation page is all that we need to link the various 'indie' articles together. This article wreaks of WP:OR and POV, and it was a lot worse before the poorest sections were trimmed.--Michig (talk) 19:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Are you kidding me? Now this isn't the best-written article on Wikipedia but anyone who argues that the subject isn't notable hasn't read the CNN article at the bottom of the page. Also consider beefing the article up with this, this, and this. Themfromspace (talk) 23:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Most of those links are about indie rock/independent music (including the CNN article), and not a single one of them convincingly defines a supposed indie culture that encompasses music, fashion, film, behaviour and beliefs in one specific subculture called indie.Spylab (talk) 00:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a very bad article, but about a topic that's certainly important. There area a number of magazines (the NME for a start) which regularly write articles about it. There is a culture which is distinct from the music or film industry. Tkos (talk) 16:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:25, 18 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) 21:24, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Harris Has Hooves

I can't find any reliable sources for this short film. Schuym1 (talk) 12:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only evidence I found of this was a YouTube entry called "Ben Harris Has Hooves" from three days ago, and which has a grand total of 12 views at the time of writing. After looking at it, I am concluding that it's not even a "film", just a still picture with music. Fails any imaginable notability criteria, and probably verifiability criteria as well. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as entirely non-notable. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 16:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this one-sentence article as unsourcable speculation. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:33, 19 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 speedy redirect to Kota Kinabalu#Education. MBisanz ^talk 17:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kian kok middle school

Non-notable, low content. TheMolecularMan (talk) 12:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to appropriate school district unless some sort of independent notability is shown. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kota Kinabalu#Education where the school is already mentioned. TerriersFan (talk) 14:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per TerriersFan. Deor (talk) 18:26, 16 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 Speedy keep Snowball, withdrawn. NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abstract nonsense

The following is why this article should be deleted:

This article is unencyclopedic since it is not giving any specific useful information

This article does not seem to have any particular purpose. It is well cited but this does not give any reasons as to why this article is useful

Just because 2-3 people have used the term 'abstract nonsense' does not mean that an article on the topic should be created

This article may give the wrong impression of category theory

This article is not important enough to serve as an article in an encyclopedia (despite the references) per WP:N

This article is therefore unencyclopedic; it does not provide any useful information nor does it give sufficient evidence that this article should be in an encyclopedia

It is not possible to add any further input to this article; citing a couple of people who have used the term is useless

Topology Expert (talk) 11:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep. The expression proving things by abstract nonsense" is well-established and frequently used. Moreover, its use is not limited to category theory. The article itself is well-written. It would be far-fetched to say that it is derogatory toward category theory. The article can definitely be helpful to a novice not yet familiar with the expression. I find the last two sentences particularly helpful. Perhaps the examples section should be expanded. I would like to make a more specific point given the nature of the expertise of the deletion nominator: specifically in topology, "general nonsense" arguments using classifying spaces and diagram-chasing are common, though perhaps more so in homotopy theory than in low-dimensional topology. Katzmik (talk) 12:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point. However, do you have any specific references indicating that this term is 'well-established and frequently used'. I don't have much experience in WP; is it common for articles to be about a single quote, joke etc...?

I agree that diagram chasing is somewhat a 'nonsense' argument but is nevertheless as formal as any other argument. The same goes with results in homotopy theory. Because of this I am compelled to ask whether there is any specific classification of arguments; i.e when it is 'nonsense' or 'sense'. Or, does one just use his intuition to determine whether an argument is 'nonsense'? In any case, this article does not describe which arguments are 'nonsense' and only lists a couple of 'nonsense' arguments. In my opinion, this is pointless; the whole purpose of the article is to describe why diagram chasing is 'nonsense' (or other such arguments).

Topology Expert (talk) 12:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, although I could be convinced otherwise. The problem I see is that the notable people who use it, use it for different things. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 12:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The title abstract nonsense should link somewhere, as it is a well established phrase and a likely search phrase. http://stats.grok.se shows that "Abstract nonsense" and its redirect "General abstract nonsense" receive a steady stream of page views, which we want to continue to support.
Overall, I think the deletion nomination speaks to the need to improve the article - which I agree with. However, established practice is that articles are not deleted only because they require improvement.
I do think there is a valid question of whether this topic should be covered independently, or in a section of the category theory article. But I don't find the deletion rationale compelling to delete the content altogether. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Thankyou for your response. However, I must emphasise that I am not saying that the article needs to be improved. For a start, it can't be improved (how many more quotes can you give from people who use the term 'abstract nonsense'). Second of all (as I mentioned earlier), it is not notable enough per WP:N. Basically, the content does not deserve to be in an encyclopedia. Topology Expert (talk) 12:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm quite confident the material could be improved. As I said, the question of merging this into category theory is very valid. I tend to lean towards merging. By the way, please use bullets to indent replies to bulleted posts, to make conversation easier to follow. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would define an argument by "abstract nonsense" as an argument characterized by the following:

it uses very general principles rather than specific techniques; the advantage of this is in general both that (1) one can avoid being clever (which is difficult) and merely rely on erudition, and (2) frequently such an argument is more convincing to a more sophisticated crowd.

it is typically formal, non-constructive, or "by contradiction".

Hope this helps. At any rate, even if one does not have a formal definition, the term is well-established in the mathematical community, and therefore a legitimate subject for a page in my opinion. Katzmik (talk) 12:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting. I tend to view "abstract nonsense" mainly as a synonym for "category theory". Mathworld has a different definition. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, category theory is a generalization of different notions in mathematics (along with other concepts, of course). For instance, a morphism in category theory is a generalization of homomorphisms, continuous maps, k-times continuously diffentiable maps (between smooth manifolds) or even morphisms (in the case of fibre bundles)! This article critizises category theory and instead of stating its use, states why its 'nonsense'. In any case, category theory is definitely not 'abstract nonsense'. Topology Expert (talk) 13:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, category theory is not nonsense. But the term "abstract nonsense" has long been used to refer to it. As Salix Alba points out, this is not much different than calling i imaginary, when it certainly is not. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree but is this term so important that it should be kept in an encyclopedia? The other criterion for determining the importance of the article is to see how it relates to other concepts in its field. From what I have seen, the only purpose of this article is to give a 'synonym' for category theory. Despite the fact that it is well accepted, it does not seem so have any particular purpose other than 'teaching a new term'. Topology Expert (talk) 13:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article is well sourced, well written and encyclopedic; term is sufficiently notable to have a MathWorld entry; "does not seem to have any particular purpose" is a subjective view and is not grounds for deletion. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I would not say this article is well written, but that has nothing to do with whether it should be deleted or not. "Abstract nonsense" is a widely used term in mathematics, and its usage is very well attested. As Katzmik points out, it doesn't just refer to category theory, and these days it is hardly derogatory - it is even used with some affection, and not just by category theorists. I've no idea what "useful" is supposed to mean in the context of deciding whether an article is encyclopedic, or how it pertains to any criterion for deletion from, say, WP:NOT. Please remember that Wikipedia's coverage of mathematics is not limited to mathematical coverage of mathematics. Just because it is not a mathematical term with a precise definition does not mean it is unencyclopedic. The term is an important part of the sociology of mathematics if nothing else. Geometry guy 12:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for your opinion. You said that 'abstract nonsense' is a widely used term in mathematics but from what I know it is only used in category theory. Second of all (now that I have established that it is not widely used), why create an article describing why diagram chasing is nonsense (which is basically what the purpose of the article is at this point in time)? It does not seem to be a useful thing to do. However, I could be wrong about saying that this term is only used in category theory. If you have any references contradicting what I said, could you please give them? Topology Expert (talk) 13:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you define for me what you mean by "only used in category theory"? In a sense, everything is category theory, in which case you are surely right, but that doesn't contradict my assertion that the term is widely used. Was Grothendieck doing category theory when he proved his version of Riemann-Roch? Are schemes category theory or algebraic geometry? Can you define for me what you mean by "useful"? You obviously seem to think that the term "abstract nonsense" can only be read literally as saying "abstract mathematics is nonsense". This completely ignores the history and sociology of the term, which the references in the article already document. Geometry guy 13:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would move it to Proof by abstract nonsense. Any buyers? Katzmik (talk) 12:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think abstract nonsense is a more likely search term and a more likely phrase to be linked (would you prefer to see "this is a proof by abstract nonsense" in an article?). — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a problem necessarily. One could leave abstract nonsense as a page with a redirect. Katzmik (talk) 13:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but the title we use should reflect the way that most people would expect the page to be named. The main role of the title is to make the article easy to find. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An important part of the history of mathematics. There are many example of degority terms used to express resistance to change for new mathematical concepts, irrational numbers, imaginary numbers, normally marking the start of important developments in the subject. Abstract nonsense is a fine example of this tradition. --Salix alba (talk) 12:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely agree. The question in this case: Is the article useful enough to serve as encyclopedic content. This is a term describing category theory and is not a 'definition' unlike your examples. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Topology Expert (talk • contribs) 2008-09-16T13:02:31

Comment. I don't see the term as widely used. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That would depend on your definition of "widely" I suppose. But I think most mathematicians will have heard the term, and a google books search for "abstract nonsense" shows quite a few uses in math texts. You have to ignore the non-math uses, and browse through a few pages, to get the full effect. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (or maybe merge into category theory.)
- It is a commonly used phrase in the mathematics community, used to refer to diagram chasing arguments which tend to straight forward but lengthy and usually not very illuminating.
- The article provides useful information in the sense that when first encountered by students it might be confusing.
- There might be a case for renaming the article to something like proof by abstract nonsense.
- Alternatively, it could be merged into category theory as a subsection, but I see little reason for deletion —Preceding unsigned comment added by TimothyRias (talk • contribs) 2008-09-16T13:07:44

- Thankyou for giving you opinion. However, could you please specifically tell me the purpose of the article?
  I don't think that the fact that students find category theory 'confusing' can serve as an article. Topology Expert (talk) 13:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you for asking your questions. However, could you please specifically tell me the purpose of the article butter? --Hans Adler (talk) 13:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - I was not refering to the possible confusement of students of category theory, but to the confusement of students (or other people unfamiliar with the phrase) first encountering the phrase "abstract nonsense" in certain proofs. For them it could be quite useful to google the term and find the wikipage that explains what is meant by it. Note that there are also wikipages for proof by inpection, trivial (mathematics) and other mathematical jargon. (TimothyRias (talk) 13:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

- - The fact that students find epsilon-delta confusing has served as a basis for endless amounts of verbiage at at least half a dozen distinct pages. I am not sure if this page describes a sociological phenomenon or a I need an aspirin phenomenon, but it is certainly a phenomenon :) Katzmik (talk) 13:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is true but I do not think that the same should apply to category theory (most students who do category theory would have a sufficient mathematical maturity to be able to understand it after some thought). Topology Expert (talk) 13:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- The fact that many mathematicians have heard the term does not give any specific reason as to why the article should be created. Many mathematicians know what the fundamental group is for instance and therefore there is an article on it. However, the fundamental group is an important concept in mathematics. On the other hand, 'abstract nonsense' is not a concept in mathematics and means nothing. Topology Expert (talk) 13:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - I think that's the whole question: if something is not formally a concept in mathematics, does it follow that it means nothing? Infinitesimals are a case in point :) Katzmik (talk) 13:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - It is a term used by mathematicians that when left unexplained makes no sense to the layman. Much like the mathematical use of words like trivial (mathematics) of canonical (mathematics. (TimothyRias (talk) 13:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Speedy keep The term [general] abstract nonsense is in widespread use, especially in topology. Google Scholar search shows that, contrary to what the nominator claims, it is far from having been used only by a 2-3 people such as Saunders Mac Lane and Norman Steenrod (actually two of the founders of category theory). I imagine it should be enough to attend a single conference on algebraic topology to see this. (I haven't, but then I don't claim to be an expert in topology. It's merely an area in which I attended a handful of lecture courses and a couple of seminars.)

It may make sense to merge this article into category theory. It may make sense to optimise the text in order to make it absolutely plain even to the humour-impaired that the term "abstract nonsense" does not imply that category theory is nonsense any more than use of the term "field" implies that algebraists are peasants. But an absurd deletion discussion that should never have been started is not the right place for this. --Hans Adler (talk) 13:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. What the article seems to me to chiefly lack is context: why mathematicals consider some sorts of mathematical discourse "abstract", and in what sense — (i.e. academic / moot? tautological? otherwise removed from useful application?) and, why they consider it nonsense. But these seem to be matters potentially subject to improvement. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Just heard it the other day from a professor. Nom rationale seems like a case of WP:WHOCARES. MuZemike (talk) 14:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well-referenced article that asserts and proves notability. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 16:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since no legitimate reason for deletion has been advanced. -- Dominus (talk) 16:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw !vote. I still don't see it as notable, or as possible to improve on the entire article being:

The term abstract nonsense is used to describe proofs and arguments which use more abstract methods then (apparently) necessary to prove the desired result, often used to refer to category theory or topos theory.(unsourced, and probably unsourcable). The following have used it[1][2][3][4].

Perhaps it could be merged into Category theory#criticism, or something like that. This article has very little that could be included in a real article, even if a real article were possible. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The nomination cites a a number of reasons why the article is unencyclopedic:

Re It gives no useful information Possibly. Though I am not opposed to such a criterion, let's suppose that every article needed an auxiliary "usefulness" statement to be filled out by the article creator. How would one fill this out say for an article on Wings of Desire? I think if we decide "utility" is a criterion, we need to carefully think through what this would imply for article generally.
Re Just because 2-3 people have used the term 'abstract nonsense' . The phrase "abstract nonsense" is widely used, certainly by far more than 2-3 people. The suggestion "just because 2-3 people use it" is misleading.
Re This article "may" give the wrong impression of category theory Any article "may" give the wrong impression about its subject. That seems to me like a very strange use of a modal argument for deletion.
Re It is not possible to add any further input to this article; citing a couple of people who have used the term is useless Since when is the possibility of adding anything a requirement for an encyclopedia article? For example Hilbert's fifth problem is solved completely, and the solution pretty much killed an area of mathematics. There is Montgomery-Zippin's book which is the definitive statement.. Since it's not possible to usefully add input to the article on Hilbert's fifth problem, should we delete that also. Maybe the proposer means something else by this comment, but I think more clarification is needed.
Re: Arthur Rubin's objection. I think it's true that the usage does not refer to a specific technique or result such as diagram chasing or the five lemma. But the term is often used and does have a meaning in terms of mathematical activity.

--CSTAR (talk) 17:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Please take a few minutes to use the material discussed here to improve the page abstract nonsense. Katzmik (talk) 13:42, 16 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) 00:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greater China Billionaires

a single source list for a single year. PROD was removed so bringing here. As a single source listing it makes much more sense as a reference within the articles about the particular billionaires and perhaps a category. The article if it continues to exists either needs to be an article about the subject "Greater China Billionaires", or a "List of Chinese Billionaires", or an article specifically about the Forbes list including history, etc. This article is none of those. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We deliberately avoid lists and categories of "billionaires" on WP, since the definition of the term is so damned tricky. Billionaire in capital, cash, properties? By which valuation? And in which currency - yuan? US Dollars? GB Pounds? Euros? Hell, I'd be a billionaire if you measured it in Zimbabwean dollars. Too messy. Grutness...wha? 00:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Add to Grutness the fact that the membership is temporal. There is no way to keep the list automatically current (without linking to a dated external website) so it is best to keep this info as a link to a dated external webpage (Forbes?) from other relevant articles. --Regents Park (count the magpies) 12:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:27, 18 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. Mr.Z-man 04:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neomilitarism

Neologisms have no place in wikipedia. The entire concept is drawn from the book The Collapse of Fortress Bush by Alasdair Roberts [43]. This will be a valid topic if the term receives significant coverage in multiple secondary reliable sources. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I can't even find sources discussing the book. Carewolf (talk) 11:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as un-notable neologism. lk (talk) 13:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: neologism. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 14:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SOAPBOX and nn neologism (hey, both terms start with "neo," how about that?) MuZemike (talk) 21:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's a neologism. RockManQ (talk) 02:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just checked scholar.google.com and JSTOR and there are references to the use of this term back to early 1960s -- will revise tomorrow. Ebenezer27 (talk) 01:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Revisions added; to meet the original concern, there is significant coverage in multiple secondary reliable sources over a span of four decades; an older usage pertaining to Latin America and a newer usage by multiple authors pertaining to post-2000. This can be validated by doing a search on Google or scholar.google or by looking at JSTOR or other academic databases, and NYT historic database Ebenezer27 (talk) 03:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the term has evidently passed both notability and non-neologism criteria now. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 05:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I am still sceptical. While the term has been used by multiple sources now, it looks like each use is unrelated to the former, so every author is using the term as a neologism. So just because neomilitarism now covers 5 different neologisms, doesn't make it more notable. Carewolf (talk) 08:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Neologisms must be "words and terms that have recently been coined". This is not the case here. Clearly the term has been used in two contexts for some time. The uses are related. In both contexts they refer to significant shifts in military-state relations; one cluster is concerned with the shifting role of the military in Latin America; and the other cluster is concerned with the shifting role of the US military in recent history, particularly post-2001. On notability: the coverage is significant and the sources reliable. We can add others if it's a matter of count. On the question of whether every author "is using the term as a neologism": Do we have to prove that each author had knowledge of earlier usages, and intended to refer to those earlier usages? Practically speaking, how do we do that? Ebenezer27 (talk) 11:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC) — Ebenezer27 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I closed this as delete earlier, but at the request of Ebenezer27, I am reopening the discussion as the article was amended during the debate. I am going to relist this to today's AFD and notify the above contributors. Stifle (talk) 10:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 10:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 11:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable neologism. Stifle (talk) 13:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. I couldn't find any reliable sources on this.--Banime (talk) 14:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There seems to be some confusion above. Per WP:DICDEF, our articles should be about topics not words. So what is the topic that we are considering here? If there are different usages of the word neomilitarism then these would be different topics and we need to know which we are talking about. Note that the issue of neologism is irelevant since, per WP:NEO that is purely a matter of style and clarity - ensuring that our readership understands the words we use. If the title is obscure then we can replace it with another word or phrase which describes the topic more clearly. But we need to be sure what that topic is. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:16, 17 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 21:12, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KKIN

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/KKIN

Article is a dab page with 2 entries one of which is a redlink. The 2 stations on the page are in the same town and I'm pretty sure have alot more in common than they do differences. PROD was removed with the explanation that this is the "standard" dab page but, that doesn't make it anymore required or appropriate for this particular case. The "dab" should be deleted and both stations should be merged to this location. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No harm if it's kept or deleted. Forseeably, the same people who created the article KKIN (AM) would write an article about KKIN-FM. An argument for keeping rather than redirecting is that the page also alerts a user to the existence and the frequency of both stations. Mandsford (talk) 16:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding from previous similar things was that a see also note at the top is best when there are only two entries. Also, both KKINs are the same station, broadcasting a different format on each of its bandwidth assignments but, with crossover where applicable (as seen here) and therefore doesn't require separate articles. Much better to have one really good article than 1 stub and a redlink.Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The redlink no longer exsists (page was made yesterday, 9/17) and WP:WPRS SOP is to create a disambig page for the two stations and not to have one article for both stations, see WDXE (among others). - NeutralHomer • Talk 19:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep: This is a disambig page for a radio station. This is standard MOS for WP:WPRS disambig pages. Please see WDXE (which was previously up for deletion, kept). These are generally notable as they are connected to the radio station pages (also always notable). - NeutralHomer • Talk 23:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KKIN-FM page has been made. - NeutralHomer • Talk 23:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep as issue has been addressed per WikiProject Radio Station standards for disambiguating two or more stations with the same base callsign. - Dravecky (talk) 23:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep as licensed radio stations are generally considered notable. The two stations share some programs that are broadcast first on one and then later on the other, but each has their own format. Substantial precedent exists for dab pages that disambiguate two or more radio or television stations with the same base call sign. Mlaffs (talk) 04:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I didn't realise we had different standards for Dab pages depending on what the subject was and I definitely wasn't trying to argue any sort of notability (being well aware that it was notable). Is there a special procedure that needs to be followed to withdraw a nomination? Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, but if you note below your original nomination at the top of this thread that you want to withdraw it, either an admin will close the discussion eventually or someone will do a non-admin close. Mlaffs (talk) 12:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep When the nomination was made, there wasn't an article for KKIN-FM, and nominator was correct that it was disambiguity page that resolved no amibiguity. With the addition of the new article, and the change in circumstances, it's a legitimate dab page. In this case, I congratulate User:Jasynnash2; but for this nomination, I don't know that the omission would have been fixed. Neither I nor the nominator have listened to this particular Minnesota radio station, but I'm glad that someone who is familiar with the subject has written about it. Mandsford (talk) 19:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: To be honest, I am in Virginia, but the information is available from the FCC, Radio-Locator, and 100000watts.com....so it makes any station page easy to make. - NeutralHomer • Talk 19:32, 20 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 the author article and delete the three book articles.. The author article needs development but it appears to have sources demonstrating notability. Material on the books can be added to that. Bduke (Discussion) 12:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maggie Power

Non-notable novelist and her books Tikiwont (talk) 09:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete all Nothing in any of these stubs asserting notability, and virtually no substantive content. Just adverts really. jimfbleak (talk) 09:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no notability for the author (one blog entry I did find [44] indicated she was now self publishing and hadn't received any mainstream reviews), none of the books seem to pass WP:BK. CultureDrone (talk) 10:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Maggie, delete books I think that Maggies everywhere, of any race, creed or ethnic origin, should be empowered. That being said, I think that having two novels published by Simon & Schuster would be notable. Any information about the two novels could be incorporated into the author article, and I agree that stubs for those don't need to be reserved if all they have is an ISBN number. Mandsford (talk) 16:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Weak keep for the author Porphyria's Lover. at any rate had a review in TLS, the Times literary supplement. no. 4827, (1995): 28 according to WorldCat. . And S&S is no vanity press. Very few US holdings of it or the other titles, tho. 1 article is enough, but the content needs to be expanded. DGG (talk) 02:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:28, 18 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 redirect to WWE Intercontinental Championship. This has been open long enough. Stifle (talk) 21:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of WWE Intercontinental Championship tournaments

Non notable topic Adster95 (talk) 12:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a needed page. Maybe merge it with WWE Intercontinental Championship. I think inaugural tournaments should be included in brackets in such articles (like here) but these tournaments are not inaugural. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 14:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 13:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the 1997 tournament into WWE Bad Blood#1997, and redirect the article to WWE Intercontinental Championship. Nikki311 15:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge info to relevant pages, Redirect this page to IC title page. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 08:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment this doesn't need relisting, just redirecting. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:55, 16 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) 00:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Birnkrant 616

AfDs for this article:

Previously deleted student in-house tv series that fails WP:N and WP:V requirements. Ros0709 (talk) 08:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will address concerns raised, but Birnkrant 616 is hardly an in-house television series. It broadcasts to over 5million people on three specific networks (USC Television, LA36, and the OSTN)^[1], has been featured in television festivals

^[2], and written about in notable publications ("Campus Circle", circulation - 30,000, published weekly)^[3]^[4] In addition, USC Film is widely considered to be the premiere film school in the world,

"In its most recent ranking of graduate film programs, U.S. News in 1997 rated USC tied with New York University for first place, with UCLA a close third. USC boasts that every year since 1973 at least one of its former students has been nominated for an Academy Award." The Los Angeles Times ^[5]

As such, I strongly believe the first student produced sitcom in the school's history is indeed quite notable.

EarlofGowrie (talk) 12:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. First sitcom at a particular school, written about in a campus paper, and shown only on the campus television station (the other networks are merely other places where the campus station broadcasts). None of these scream "notability" to me. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 04:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 08:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sources showing third party notability is forthcoming. Ie. articles not affiliated with the university discussing it. Sounds like a good achievment for the uni, but nothing to show that non-alumni/sudents have any interest in it.Yobmod (talk) 10:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Trojan Vision Statistics". Retrieved 2008-09-05.
^ "Internet2 Film Festival".
^ ""Campus Circle" Birnkrant 616 Review". Retrieved 2008-09-05.
^ ""Campus Circle" Reader statistics Review". Retrieved 2008-09-05.
^ ""Los Angeles Times" History of USC Film Review". Retrieved 2008-09-05.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 04:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Culture of the 2000s

Original research, no references, decade not over yet. Seems unlikely this can be rehabilitated into encyclopedic content until at least some minimum time has passed to allow for the development of reliable secondary sources from which information can be drawn. As it stands now, this is very limited in scope (centered on middle-class America) and unencyclopedic. Note that the Culture of the 1990s article shares some of these problems, and we've had eight years to look back on that decade. Dmwiki (talk) 08:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete is Original Research, indicated by phrases such as ".. can be said to be ...". Agree that we need historical perspective, and even then it will be hard to write something truly encylopedic. TrulyBlue (talk) 10:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It would be a good topic for an article. The problem in this case is the old "original research" problem. It's tempting for any of us to write our own observations about a decade that we're currently experiencing, and the intent was probably to set a framework for people to make their contributions. And that's OK in most websites, but Wikipedia has a rule on point about this, and though it's not much fun, it's a good rule. Here it is: "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, or arguments. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented." What this means is that an article like this is required to cite to someone else's observations that have been published in a book, magazine article, newspaper, etc. It hurts to do that, because pop culture seems to get documented by some of the most poorly written books I've ever seen -- Julian Biddle's What Was Hot!: Five Decades of Pop Culture in America isn't even good as a bathroom reader, because the pages would clog up the plumbing. Yes, you could probably do a better job than published authors, but the ban on OR applies to topics like this. Mandsford (talk) 12:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be original research on its enterity, the personal thoughts of one editor on what the culture of the 2000s was like. I have no problem with keeping the article if good sources are found for the statements, and the article updated to reflect those sources. Stuff like scholar studies of culture, or even long articles on Rolling Stones magazine of big magazines like Time magazine, where the main focus of those magazine article is examining the culture of the 2000s. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As well as it being about a year premature, there are certainly multiple issues with this article (such as a narrow viewpoint instead of a world viewpoint, lack of references etc). However, to my mind all of these issues can be remedied, and therefore I don't regard this article as a candidate for deletion. Bettia (rawr CRUSH!) 15:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is always going to be original research. --neon white talk 14:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. As has been said above, reliable secondary sources simply do not yet exist that examine the culture of the decade we are in. As it stands, the article is OR, crufty, and non-encyclopaedic. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 16:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, inherently violates WP:NOR. Stifle (talk) 23:01, 20 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 speedy delete. MBisanz ^talk 17:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scifer

Appears to promote the author's algorithm/implementation, nothing to establish notability. "Compression to unity"? - appears to claim that it could compress wikipedia to a single character. TrulyBlue (talk) 08:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable software. The fact that it claims something impossible isn't an argument for deletion on its own, but it is certainly a reason the software isn't notable - it's trivially provable that it can't do what it claims. Zetawoof_(ζ) 09:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable. It's basically an advert, no apprent ghits, and there's no indication that the software is actually in use by any major companies. CultureDrone (talk) 11:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hang On (Author) - "Compression to unity" is misunderstood "Unity is not single character". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Senthil ucl (talk • contribs) 17:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete G11 for advertising and no claim to notability. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if it was the best thing since peanut butter, it's not a notable: hardly a google hit [45]. Equendil Talk 22:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Compress to unity (or less) and replace with this NASA rocket-borne experiment. No Ghits to speak of. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(author) I am aware of NASA Project and also Scifer project on archaeological work on NAGAS [46].The name reference is coincidental .I have got timestamps of scifer which predates almost 7-8 years.Universal Common Logic claims unity and not Scifer.Scifer is based on it.Query Universal Common Logic in google or yahoo or live and it would take to scifer site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Senthil ucl (talk • contribs) 04:28, 17 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 speedy keep. MBisanz ^talk 17:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simonds Catholic College

Nothing to establish notability. I mean, why should it be in Wikipedia? [H2H] (talk) 08:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 14:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 14:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As a school for "years 7 to 10", it includes grades 9 and 10, and therefore qualifies as a high school. --Eastmain (talk) 14:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - high school with sources available to meet WP:N. TerriersFan (talk) 15:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per keep above. Why should it not be in Wikipedia?Assize (talk) 21:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as high school. For my thoughts on the subject of high school notability, see this essay, and please also read it's talk page, which I think has some information that you may find very interesting. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 04:11, 17 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) 00:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

West Brunswick Football Club

Not notable club, with very little content Superflewis (talk) 08:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per my nomination --Superflewis (talk) 08:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with the previous editor. Not notable for a stand alone article. Team is already mentioned under Victorian Amateur Football Association Surfing bird (talk) 00:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 14:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no references to prove notability. Delete.--Lester 02:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep or Merge - the club has been around since 1959 - some 49 years - and there are some primary references relating to it from a web search, and one secondary reference, probably incidental, from a suburban newspaper. I suspect the club may have a limited notability, and if some effort was made into searching out old newspapers there might be further reliable secondary references to indicate notability. As it is, it needs to be stubbed and grammar and spelling corrected. Perhaps the basic content can be merged into Victorian Amateur Football Association. --Takver (talk) 12:20, 19 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 Deleted by User:SchuminWeb. - Icewedge (talk) 01:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All Knowing Force

AfDs for this article:

Non-notable radio program, does not appear to be syndicated. The article claims 'immense popularity' but this does not seem to be reflected by WP:RS. - Icewedge (talk) 07:05, 16 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. Nick Dowling (talk) 11:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Jansen

I'm not convinced this ten year old has achieved notability yet, depite links to his internet sites. Grahame (talk) 06:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 06:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you look at the talk page? We are newbies, and are trying to post valid 3rd party references there. Could we get some help on what is required? 4jace (talk) 07:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I'm failing to find any significant coverage from reliable 3rd party sources which speak of this Jordan Jansen. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pushy parents' promotional puffery. TrulyBlue (talk) 10:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The last two words may be accurate but there is no basis for the first two. Refer WP:BITE and WP:CIVIL Murtoa (talk) 10:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, my apologies. TrulyBlue (talk) 10:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete While the subject appears to be talented and may go on to bigger things, being unsigned and without touring nationally (as examples), he fails WP:MUSIC. Googling appears to fail to find any coverage in reliable, independent third-party sources. The official website does have a series of news clippings under the biography section, which are unsourced, (although the talk page suggests they may be from the Gold Coast Sun) but at least some appear to be simply promoting upcoming events. Murtoa (talk) 10:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from Author Please look at the talk page on this article for a few specific references to newspaper sources. Obviously my submission was premature. If you want to delete it, it will be a kindness at this point. I am not a member of the family. The comment about "pushy parents" seems unwarranted. I thought Jordan deserved an entry here for his accomplishments. 4jace (talk) 10:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
URGENT from Author Am I permitted to blank this article at the request of the subject and his family? They have contacted me with such a request. 4jace (talk) 10:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response as the creator and main contributor you are allowed to blank it. This will be seen as you giving permission to delete the article though. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Based on the above comment, the page is going to be blanked. 4jace (talk) 11:26, 16 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 as withdrawn. Synergy 05:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aster Data Systems

~~Contested speedy, blatant vanity page with no assertion of notability. Reads like a company prospectus, probable COI. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 05:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

- Keep but completely rewrite Evidence of notability has been estabilshed, but the marketing portions of this article have to be removed and the remainder expanded and made NPOV. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 14:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note. It does seem to have achieved some level of notability: [47], [48], [49], [50]. Undoubtedly, the article isn't even remotely encyclopedic. I'll add it to my list and try to work in it soon. user:j (aka justen) 06:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but massively re-edit. The MySpace use makes the technology notable, though the article is written as company marketing. TrulyBlue (talk) 10:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a CompSci person, I'd like to see some citable evidence that this stuff is any good. Where are the papers? Also, I can't see that there is anything at all worth preserving in the current text. None of its distinguishing features appear to distinguish it from products like Hadoop, and HBase except that I know that they can be run on way bigger system that 360TB of data. With only one customer, its hard to have any independent writeup of the technology, which is why academic papers could be a good way of verifying the content. Without that: nothing but marketing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveLoughran (talk • contribs) 16:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There has to be some form of independent verifiable sources to supplement the article, and as of right now, none seem to exist. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 17:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Justen's already dug up four above (and here's another two for good measure), all from reliable outlets (Washington Post/Techcrunch, CNET, PC World, Information Week, etc.). Needs a good tidy up to remove the marketing guff (might have a go at it myself later), but I think it comfortably passes the general notability guideline. Keep. Gr1st (talk) 17:58, 17 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) 00:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yasmin Alhilli

I declined an A7 speedy deletion on this article, as it does seem to indicate notability. However, I had little success in finding sources when I did a quick check before refusing the speedy. I think it would be better discussed here, as to whether there's notability to be had. Article suggests she has driven in some high-end rally championships. Consider me neutral. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet notability (very few notable Google links on her). The article mentions that she is a member of Muharraq Club and goes on to list achievements of this club since her membership. Yet I can not find a reference to this membership and how, if any, her membership has aided in the clubs success. She is mentioned as a consultant.--«JavierMC»|Talk 06:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I think notability, if it exists, will come from her racing career. Gnews gives two small mentions in motorsport.com; article sources have a couple of passing mentions and a full interview in a source with unknown (to me) reliability and independence. However, it's likely that a search of non-English sources may show notability -- if that happens, I'll happily change to keep.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable. There's also some series conflict of interest here given that the subject is writing her own article. Plus, this was speedily deleted before.--CyberGhostface (talk) 18:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:30, 18 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. Mr.Z-man 04:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Hampshire Roller Derby

Unremarkable article. No references, sources, external links or inline citations. Only 1 inbound link from New Hampshire. Official site looks more like a Myspace page than a substantial organization. Superflewis (talk) 05:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per my nomination --Superflewis (talk) 05:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Being an Unremarkable article, not having external links, having only 1 inbound link and the appearance of their official site are not reasons to delete an article. --Captain-tucker (talk) 13:38, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The only problem that I see with the article is that it lacks an encyclopedic style, and the author hasn't put in citations or sources. Certainly, there are sources; the official site does have links to a July 31 article in the Boston Globe and other publications. What this appears to be, according to the independent sources, is a business that stages exhibitions at arenas in New England. Mandsford (talk) 13:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - NN corp; no assertions of notability, no evidence of notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional tone, no notability, no sources, no apparently useful hits on google. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No valid references, unencyclopedic advertising language ("The girls pride themselves in being positive role models and members of the community"). Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article needs improvement and to be related to the greater world of American roller derby, but based on the quantity of other roller derby articles already existing, I see no reason why this one can't be brought up to their level.--Ken Gallager (talk) 12:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, have you found suitable reliable sources for this article? Regards, HaeB (talk) 00:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have just added three reliable source references to the article. True, the article needs improvement and cleanup but these are not reasons for deletion. --Captain-tucker (talk) 13:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. —Captain-tucker (talk) 13:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The added sources do it for me. Unremarkable, not very wikified, perhaps. Those are reasons to improve it though, imho. Arakunem^Talk 19:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, coverage is fairly trivial. Stifle (talk) 00:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, added two relevant inbound links and another reference. --Oddharmonic (talk) 00:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and comment - Holy Toledo, this RFD was launched a mere four hours after the article was created! (actually, I see it was requested THREE MINUTES after the article was created!) I know it's fun to proclaim things as beneath you and to banish them from the kingdom - I have my deletionist side - but for crying out loud, give articles a few days to leave pre-beta stage. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 01:01, 21 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. This article is full of FAIL. No notability established, and this reeks as a joke. seicer | talk | contribs 13:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria kopetz

I believe it fails notability. Appears to be written by its subject, who claims to be a "world renowned expert in cardiology". The citation that is supposed to support this, however, shows no such thing. There are also mentions of multiple awards, however none of these awards are cited in anything more than a hospital newsletter. In addition, it cites things where the subject's name does not even appear or private facebook groups.

On the surface this article appears to be notable. However, once you dig into the citations there is little note to be found. It also takes care to note how the subject specializes in Texas Hold'em. mboverload @ 04:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I have a photo of her in Amsterdam after a presentation, and she is well known around her home city in the poker circles. The facebook group included has her listed as the president of the organisation mentioned. Apart from getting in touch with her and asking for her CV do you have any other suggestions?

Cheers, --Skydivemayday (talk) 05:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No relevant citations to demonstrate notability. Dmwiki (talk) 05:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I vote to keep, doing a google search is enough to backup the information in the article --Eevo (talk) 05:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A plain google search gives a grand total of 25 hits[51]. Which ones of them do you think indicate notability? Nsk92 (talk) 08:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately she was away overseas doing presentations during much of the current National Poker League season so it is difficult to obtain her tournament results for citations about poker. I was kind of joking about trying to get in touch with her and ask her for her CV... But I also think it is inappropriate to post her research paper up here as it is copyright and has some sensitive research information in it. --Skydivemayday (talk)

I have read her paper on Proteomics and its a fully comprehensive source of information for up and coming students.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Pete.Hurd (talk) 07:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete this is a hoax, ref #4 leads to a page for a facebook group, with Kopetz as an "officer"; clicking to get her profile makes it clear she is a graduate student. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The last point is no big deal as the subject is only 24, probably a recent graduate. One of hundreds of thousands, cannot see any notability too. NVO (talk) 11:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It means that an article claiming she is a "world-renowned expert" in anything is best considered a hoax. It's just someone having a laugh. The whole thing should have been prodded. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Not a hoax exactly (it is clear that this person does exist and she might have just graduated and the myspace profile may not have been updated yet), but a number of claims do not pass WP:V and the case does not pass either WP:PROF or WP:BIO. Ref no 2[52] is cited in the article to support the claim that she received the Joy Noble Medal. Looking at this reference one sees that she is not mentioned in the article about the medal and that that article says that the medal was in fact awarded to the The "Friends of The Queen Elizabeth Hospital" association. Kopetz' name is mentioned only once, in the photo caption for an article on another topic. Ref no 5[53] does not mention her name. Ref no 4[54] is a facebook link (not a reliable source). Ref no 1[55] mentions her giving a poster presentation at some conference. The article mentions a few student-level academic awards. Even if they are verified, they would not indicate academic notability under WP:PROF (see item 9 in Notes and Examples section of WP:PROF). No evidence of significant citability of her research (GoogleScholar gives very little[56]) or of satisfying any of the other criteria of WP:PROF. No evidence presented of her being a notable poker player either. All in all, clearly fails both WP:PROF and WP:BIO. The style of the article indicates that it may have been meant as a joke. Nsk92 (talk) 08:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per Nsk92.Geogre's Law upheld once again. --Crusio (talk) 09:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable, non-verifiable. If the article contains deliberate misinformation than Speedy it as vandalism. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:53, 16 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 redirect to Twelve-step program. Per nom and both participants in the debate. Obvious target. (non-admin closure) Protonk (talk) 06:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moral inventory

Like Singleness of Purpose this is a neologism. In the literature it is only used with in the context of twelve-step programs. Should either be deleted or redirected to the twelve-step program article. -- Scarpy (talk) 04:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to twelve-step program, per nom. -- Scarpy (talk) 04:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Concur with Scarpy. Arakunem^Talk 19:45, 19 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 Speedy delete (G7) (non-admin closure) by SkierRMH — original author requested deletion. MuZemike (talk) 07:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Use of Corporal Punishment in the National Cadet Corps

Wikipedia is not a soapbox for opinion pieces. There is no NPOV; if this is an issue, include it in the article on the NCC. Having it like this is can become a POV fork. SunDragon34 (talk) 04:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete. no way it can be NPOV. SYSS Mouse (talk) 04:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —SunDragon34 (talk) 04:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Kelly ^hi! 04:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy D Author blanked. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 05:34, 16 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 Withdrawn to replace with single article nomination as articles were merged. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Pilot) Fringe

Unnotable pilot episode of a series that has only aired a single episode. Adds absolutely nothing that is not already in the main article, except an excessively long plot in violation of WP:MOSTV, excessive non-free images, and inappropriate fansite links. This article completely fails WP:WAF, WP:PLOT, WP:N, and WP:EPISODE. The pilot has not received significant coverage apart from the series as a whole (such as it is with all of two episodes) and the main article is barely above a stub, negating claims of it being a "spin out". Attempted to just redirect back to the series article per usual method of dealing with unnotable episodes, but creator disagrees claiming its cost of creation makes it notable, and wants an full discussion before any kind of deletion (or deletion via redirect). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because its an earlier article on the same topic with the same issue - it is still an unnotable episode. The ratings don't make it notable on their own. The reception info is for a new series as a whole, and could be better used to actually improve the stubby series article. This second one has an even more excessively long plot summary, totally violating WP:MOSTV, WP:WAF and WP:PLOT.:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if the cost of creating the pilot makes it notable, then shouldn't the production cost be the focus of the article? Just a thought. And there are very many notable TV series whose pilot episodes receive no coverage (justifiably so) so I don't see anything really saying this one is special. MadScot (talk) 04:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly...considering all the viral ads announcing the series and all, it would seem to me that the production cost just speaks for the series as a whole, not just the pilot (and is there a source saying the rest of the episodes aren't being produced at the same level?). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, Collectonian, you are wrong. The pilot for this series is the most expensive ever produced. Not the series, and not the viral marketing campaign - the pilot. - Hexhand (talk) 04:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There's another article already created, Pilot (Fringe), for the first episode. As for the notability, it is one of the most talked about pilot of the season. There's significant amount of material available about its development etc. and I'm at present collecting information on this. I've already added critical and viewer reception on the article. I would suggest to combine appropriate contents of both, and redirect (Pilot) Fringe to Pilot (Fringe), considering that's the appropriate title. LeaveSleaves (talk) 04:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good lord, that one has an even worse plot section than this one! As for the ratings and critical reception, that speaks to the series as a whole, not just the pilot, when only 2 episodes have even aired. I still see nothing there that is particularly notable at all. Its still series reviews for a single episode series (at the time), and brief at best. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying it's perfect (neither did I write it), nor is this a peer review. Ratings and critical reception are based on the pilot, where they've tried gauge the future of the series, which is perfectly normal. You can find multiple news articles, along with numerous interviews by creators, that discuss its development. LeaveSleaves (talk) 04:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Er, that's the article you first sought to revert and now delete. No other pilot article existed prior to my creation of one. - Hexhand (talk) 04:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check the respective histories, you'd know. LeaveSleaves (talk) 04:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And that isn't the one I sought to revert or delete, no one ever tried to link it to the main article or it would have been at AfD already. And LeaveSleaves didn't revert or nominate anything. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably exact reason why I didn't link it. I knew people would jump the gun. Decided to wait until its presentable. LeaveSleaves (talk) 04:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that should have been my call as well. Trigger-happy AfDs are pretty frustrating. The articles weren't ready. Btw, I ported over some of your critical reception info into the version being nominated. It adds to the citations already n place in the article. I would be happy to welcome your assistance in developing out the article further. - Hexhand (talk) 04:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. I agree with Collectonian that the summary is much too excessive, and should be pared down. Personally, I tend to not have as much of a problem with individual articles on pilot episodes, unless totally non-notable. In this instance, the IGN review seems to be fully about this episode, which probably qualifies it as notable. So I don't particularly have a problem with keeping this article separate from a List of Episodes page, or the show page itself. Now, there are two articles nominated for deletion here, and so obviously one should be redirected/deleted. The one in the title of this page — (Pilot) Fringe — is not compliant with the MOS, and so should be the one to go. It's not going to be searched for, and I don't see any content particularly that needs to be saved to merge, so I have no problem with its deletion instead of redirected to Pilot (Fringe). As a side note, I assume that the name of this episode was actually "Pilot"? seresin ( ¡? ) 04:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Err, the article is less than 8 hours old, and Collectonian, (blocked previously for edit-warring) apparently decided that after two reverts (four, if you count the two from the main article for Fringe and the two deleting the contents of the pilot episode article) and threatening to nominate the article for deletion instead. Well, at least he isn't edit-warring anymore. Lol.

As noted before, the article is in fact new. Perhaps I should have stuck an 'in-use' tag on the article to keep deletionists at bay, but I figured that since the series is in fact new, it wasn't really needed. Clearly, I was wrong.

The pilot episode is going to be expanded upon greatly - there's a lot of material out there discussing not just the series but notability of the pilot itself (most expensive pilot created to date, etc.), despite the claim by Collectonian that there is nothing to be had. I wasn't aware that pilot episodes required the series to be in multiple seasons for the article to be worth writing. It isn't as if no other series pilot has ever been written (Pilot (Smallville), Pilot (House) are two Featured quality articles, and I am willing to bet that there are plenty of GA level articles as well).

Collectonian is jumping the gun more than just a little; I'll save the rest of his behavior for the AN/I, which will likely have to be filed. That aside, most new articles get a little bit of a grace period before they hav eto face getting deleted, right? I mean, the article isn't about feltching or something that's a horrific BLP violation or something. The accusations seem to be as follows:

WP:MOSTV - to whit, the plot being too long. Er, most film articles, when first created, have an atrociously long synopsis. Its usually trimmed down in short order. Why is this less than 8-hour article get less rhythm than them? Either way, it will be trimmed down. It is a process of collective editing, right?
Additionally, the claim was leveled that the episode article contains "excessive" non-free images. There are two - one being the logo for the program, and the other being a promotional poster featuring a visual element utilized in the episode. As to inappropriate fansite links, if I am not mistaken, there is but one fansite link. Pilot (Smallville) (a Featured article) has more than that.
WP:WAF and WP:PLOT - this accusation covers a lot of territory, but I am guessing that, because the article is new, that it might not have a lot of citations as of yet, but the ones there are pretty solid. It isn't being written from an in-universe perspective. Again, a little patience wouldn't be out of order.
WP:N - an article about the episode is in fact notable for a few reasons - JJ Abrams is connected to it. The episode is the most expensize made for a pilot. Ever.
WP:EPISODE - golly, it's true; I didn't wait for the process dictated by a guideline - an article about the season. Someone else can do that. IAR rules here, as the article about the pilot episode can be written, and written well. For being less than 7 hours old, I think it's not really that bad.

I would posit that this AfD is a bit premature, and being pushed through by an editor who decided to do so when his redirects were reverted. - Hexhand (talk) 04:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you are not replying to me, as I did not support deletion. And secondly, I would advise you to leave irrelevant comments about Collectonian out of your arguments. We are discussing the merits of this article, not Collectonian's rabid deletionism or whatever other problem you have with her. And as only one the many problems with your arguments, I'll note that one of the images lacks a fair-use rationale for this article, and the other one's is not a passable rationale. seresin ( ¡? ) 04:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, I wasn't replying to your post, Seresin; note that mine came after a few edit conflicts. As for my expression at Collectonian's behavior, pardon my distate at it being expressed here. This AfD exists because her redirects (deleting the article) were reverted twice. As for the images, I would welcome some assistance in making the rationale for the image I added stronger. :) - Hexhand (talk) 05:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and merge in Pilot (Fringe) Plenty of references that talk about both the first episode and the series, so it meets notability requirements. Royal broil 04:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, merging the other pilot article into it to make a stronger article, as per above and comments. The article is less than 8 hours old; allow it to improve a little. - Hexhand (talk) 05:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No matter the outcome, (Pilot) Fringe is highly unlikely to be kept. Pilot (Fringe) is the better developed article, it was created nearly a week before yours, and it is properly named, unlike yours. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and merge in Pilot (Fringe) Notable per numerous references available. Merge per correct naming. LeaveSleaves (talk) 05:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I think that the other article should be merged into the one with more information and a better Lead and section - the one being discussed in this AfD. The other article is practically a stub. - Hexhand (talk) 05:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't about quality of article but proper naming. The information can be moved either way. LeaveSleaves (talk) 05:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, the other article had more information and was better. You copied over its information to your article. But the other was better, except for having way too long a plot. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yet again, wrong, Collectonian. I copied over some of the reception information, a de facto merge, as the material already present in the article nom'd here has a better Lead, plot and cast section. In what way was it better? Might you be troubled to actually provide correct information? Should I say please? - Hexhand (talk) 14:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Pilot (Fringe), merge (Pilot) Fringe. I literally spent five minutes staring at this AfD, thinking I was losing my mind. To hopefully help clarify: there are two articles here with deceptively similar titles: Pilot (Fringe) and (Pilot) Fringe. Note the difference is which of the two words is surrounded with the parenthesis. Per the apparent standard, the title of the series should be in parenthesis. user:j (aka justen) 06:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it is confusing with the two names like that. :P For keeping Pilot (Fringe), why keep? Do you feel it is notable? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, kinda thought we already addressed that, Collectonian; it is notable. Can you provide us a number of the times that we should tell you this, so we can simply skip to the end of the conversation?

As per Justen's comments, I have moved the content from the (Pilot) Fringe article over to the Pilot (Fringe) article. I did title mine wrong, and the subsequent de facto merged article is better off for it. As the merge is essentially complete, might we finish this AfD? - Hexhand (talk) 14:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the original Pilot (Fringe) and trim its excess. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the newer (Pilot) Fringe to the earlier article, thus impriving them both. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there is now an List of Fringe episodes created by a newer editor, for a potential merge target for a cut down plot. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which kind of advocates a removal of the article as a stand-alone. Sorry, not an option, especially not when we already have FA examples of episodic pilot articles. Nice try, though. - Hexhand (talk) 14:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Pilot (Fringe), merge (Pilot) Fringe.--jadepearl (talk) 15:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Where is the notability? Where are the significant sources discussing the pilot alone? No one has yet to provide any beyond what's already in the article, and that reception section is just as applicable to the main article (and has already been copied there). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consider taking actual trouble of reading the reviews, at least of IGN, THR and USA Today, all three discuss pilots and plotline. In fact (and I know I'm slightly out of line to discuss this here), it'd be incorrect to put those reviews in main article considering that they are based only on initial episode and do not cover the series. LeaveSleaves (talk) 15:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As well, it has been pointed out to Collectonian on no less than four occasions (five now) that the pilot is the most expensive pilot in history (beating out another Abrams pilot, Lost).

Anyway, the AfD for this article is relatively moot, as the content from it has already been merged to the Pilot (Fringe) article, and is actively being improved/expanded upon. The only thing remaining is Collectonian's assertion that the wiki is paper and that new pilots aren't notable. - Hexhand (talk) 15:35, 16 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. Stifle (talk) 00:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chimera (The X-Files)

Almost no content. It is on a list of episodes already and has no verifiable notability worth its own article. SunDragon34 (talk) 03:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —SunDragon34 (talk) 03:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Episodes aren't individually notable. I see nothing that makes this one so. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 03:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per the otter chorus. / Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've expanded the article, added references, appropriate template, as well as a plot summary. Also on the question of Notability, how is this article any less notable than this one, or this one, or even this one. --Superflewis (talk) 06:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They first two qually fail at establishing notability, and should be deleted or redirected as well, and the third at least tries to establish some notability, but isn't really much better if you read the article. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~(Delete or) redirect~~ to List of episodes. Nonnotable episode (WP:N). All used sources are unreliable (WP:RS) or trivial, and (so far) only support the plot, which can neatly fit into the LoE and doesn't really need sourcing in the first place (the episode itself is the source). – sgeureka ^t•c 08:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. How is imdb and unreliable source? tv.com and space.com are used regularly within multiple wikipedia articles.

Also, according to your rationale, should most of the X-Files individual episodes be deleted for failing Notability requirements? I think that for this case, it would be best to Ignore all rules and keep the article. --Superflewis (talk) 14:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb, tv.com and space.com are not reliable because they have no editorial oversight (they are just like wikipedia in that sense). Are you sure you know What "Ignore all rules" means? And yes, all episode articles (of whatever show) should be merged, redirected or deleted until they demonstrate notability (which usually means a Production and a Reception section as to not violate WP:NOT#PLOT) and WP:SPLIT. Pilots, finales, and award-nommed/award-winning episodes usually have more time before notability is questioned. – sgeureka ^t•c 19:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added extra references - 9 in total. I think that this cements the article as being notable enough to remain in the encyclopedia. This article has Multiple inbound links, is well writen, contains inline citations and is categorized - everything necessary to withdraw it from Afd. Bear in mind, that this article was nominated as having "Almost no content" - which I fixed, and it is notable enough to include upwards of 9 references. The sources are all Primary and Verifiable, and therefore the article should not be deleted --Superflewis (talk) 02:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to Merge the one real-world info sentence to List of episodes. Still no significant third-party sources to prove notability, and not enough significant primary production sources to qualify for a spinout. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I said below, there is more production information available from this book, but it won't make sense to add it until the plot section is expanded. And I can't personally expand the plot section without re-watching the episode. Still, what we have is a good, clean stub, which is perfectly fine. I'm not sure where people came up with this idea that TV episode articles must be GAs upon creation. The article has potential for expansion, so I think we should just leave it alone. Zagalejo^^^ 18:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why would someone create stubby spinouts (emphasis additionally added) on non-notable topics (your guide is a primary source and therefore doesn't establish notability) when everything can neatly fit into a List of Episodes? But I see I am fighting a losing battle, though not for lack of sound arguments. – sgeureka ^t•c 19:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously people like it that way. I prefer it for formatting reasons, because of the extra info they can contain. I'd feel the same if the plot summary were smaller on individual pages than on the LOE. I like that everything on that page is guaranteed to be about that episode, and I don't have to sift through a (sometimes way) larger page to find it. If I want an overview, the LOE is always still there. The infobox with cast and crew and individualized external links are something that just doesn't scale well to the LOE. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lists of episodes limit what you could potentially say about an episode, since you only get a few sentences for each. And the episode guide is just as good of source as any. Marc Shapiro is not a member of the X-Files staff, and any source is going to rely, to some extent, on interviews with the writers, actors etc. It's not like there's an independent historian hiding under a table and taking notes while the episode is being produced. Zagalejo^^^ 19:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep per recent improvements.Chuletadechancho (talk) 22:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThe entire plot section is a copyvio of this. (Doesn't anyone learn about plagiarism these days?) But I do think this topic merits inclusion. This book has some fairly extensive production information. If you have an Amazon account, you can take a look. And this source might be useful, as well. I don't really feel like performing a last-minute cleanup, so I'd recommend deleting the article now, and letting me recreate it later with a blank slate. Zagalejo^^^ 01:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've re-written the plot to include multiple references. --Superflewis (talk) 02:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still needs some more paraphrasing. I left a note on your talk page. Zagalejo^^^ 02:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Superflewis (talk) 03:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there were still a few parts that needed paraphrasing, but I just did it myself. Zagalejo^^^ 03:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plagiarism problems resolved. Now I'll try to add material from this and this. Zagalejo^^^ 03:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added a little bit. There's more that could be said about the production, but first we'll need to expand the plot section so that everything makes sense. I might do that soon, although I haven't actually seen this episode for a while, so I should probably track down a copy before I write too much. Zagalejo^^^ 04:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and the further improvements can then be dealt with If necessary that portion could even be blanked. Probably most of all episodes of shows this important get individual reviews and thus merit individual articles. Whether we ought to do long group articles is a possible question for general discussion, but is a matter of style, not notability. DGG (talk) 02:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - and improve. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. Everyking (talk) 05:07, 19 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 speedy delete. MBisanz ^talk 19:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NUSSU PRU

I am very concerned about the notability of this student organization. There is no justification or verification for inclusion in Wikipedia. Marlith (Talk) 03:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Some student unions are notable, some are not ... but do any of them merit separate articles about their public relations units? I am inclined to think not. None of the sources in the article are independent. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lack of sources + notability concerns = delete. / Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as already noted by Blaxthos and Metropolitan90. Lacks notability for it's own article.--«JavierMC»|Talk 06:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete — Wikipedia is not your own personal web host. Nice try. MuZemike (talk) 07:10, 16 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 Speedy delete (author blanked). Created redirect as suggested below.. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 02:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Millennium Middle School

No sources to verify notability. Also written a bit like an advertisement. SunDragon34 (talk) 03:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfinished nom by User:SunDragon34 Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 02:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It looks like it was written by a middle school student, too. Failing that, hard redirect to whatever school district this school falls under. JBsupreme (talk) 02:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —SunDragon34 (talk) 03:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Broward County Public Schools#Middle schools per accepted practice. TerriersFan (talk) 03:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 03:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per JBsupreme. Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete almost falling under speedy delete per (G1) as I cannot follow what this article is about one bit. In either case, a complete and utter rewrite is necessary, which warrants deletion — without prejudice, of course. MuZemike (talk) 07:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the appropriate school district as the school doesn't meet the notability requirements for "solo" article. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Broward County Public Schools#Middle schools, assuming this is the Millennium Middle School in Tamarac, FL, not the one in Sanford, FL. All I can find about the school in Tamarac is that it was used as a storm pet shelter [57] and a sixth-grader threatened to blow it up because of a test. [58] --Jh12 (talk) 11:23, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Broward County Public Schools#Middle schools per Jh12 there is very little (not enough) to sustain a separate article. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 18:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The original author blanked the page, so it will likely soon be speedy deleted under G7. FunPika 01:33, 18 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) 00:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To Kill Tomorrow

Non notable song. It was never put into production on the James Bond side, and was only played by a few metalcore bands. Fails WP:RS and seems to contain a lot of original research. Delete Undead Warrior (talk) 02:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Undead Warrior (talk) 02:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hasn't been covered in any reliable sources, fails notability for songs. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 03:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:OR and WP:RS/WP:N concerns. / Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:31, 18 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) 00:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bahala Na Gang

AfDs for this article:

This is not a notable gang, the only source being cited is "streetgangs.com" and I hardly find it qualified as a reliable source fit for encyclopedias. JBsupreme (talk) 02:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —bluemask ^(talk) 04:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Bahala Na Gang is actually a notable prison gang in the Philippines (see how it is mentioned in Philippine crime news articles such as this, which translates to "Two Bahala na Gang members arrested" and this, which translates to "Members of Batang City Jail and Bahala Na Gang attack"). However, the notability of its "American cousin" is doubtful. Starczamora (talk) 09:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 13:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 13:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 13:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, this is a non-notable criminal organization which has not been documented in any sort of non-trivial fashion. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 18:34, 16 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. Stifle (talk) 00:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kafziel asked me to clarify this — at the moment there is no consensus to delete this article, and the default result in those situations is a keep. There are references out there, which a couple of users have pointed to, which is good, but the article needs to be cleaned up. Failing that, I expect we will see it back here before long. Stifle (talk) 11:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Enyart

Not Notable per Wikipedia standards. Mksmothers (talk) 21:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Enyart is not notable per Wikipedia standards. He has produced minor works for limited distribution and "printed" them via a xerox machine or a DVD copier. He currently broadcasts on a small pay-for-broadcast radio station in the Denver market. Although the wattage is large, KLTT offers no third-party ratings. The article is un-sourced, factually disputed, contains unverified claims and doesn't list anything currently noteworthy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mksmothers (talk • contribs) 00:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find any significant coverage in reliable third-party sources. Mostly just blogs and watchdog groups (either for or against him), and no sources for the many opinions and accusations. I tried to improve the refs but wasn't able to do so, and instead had to remove a lot of statements that were in violation of WP:BLP. Without those, he doesn't seem to add up to much. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 01:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't like Bob Enyart, but he does appear in scholarly literature [59] and several times fold in reliable news sources [60]. Notability is about the number of third party reliable sources documenting a topic; not the wattage of a radio station or the ratings of a show. -- Scarpy (talk) 04:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything that looks like significant coverage in the scholarly sources (just a sentence here and there) but it does look there might be some in the news. I'd be willing to change to keep if the sources can be used to add relevant content to the Wikipedia article; at the moment, none of the news sources are talking about anything that's actually in the current article. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 05:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete no content? Why isn't this being speedy deleted. This is not notable or even usable —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.180.119.202 (talk) 16:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's an argument for improving the article, not deleting it. I don't see any question about the notability here, just the article quality.-- Scarpy (talk) 13:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's an argument that sources providing significant coverage (as required by the guideline) simply don't exist. At least, nothing I can see in any of the literature you linked to appears to be significant. Brief, passing mentions don't qualify. And for biographies of living persons, sources are not optional. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 16:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the newsarchive results, there's four articles in the first page of results just on him; he's significant. -- Scarpy (talk) 23:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I said it looked like there were some in the news results. Now if someone wants to use those sources to actually add content to the article to make an assertion of notability, I'd switch my stance. At the moment, there's so little content it could ~~almost~~ be speedied under A7. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 00:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that a well referenced article written using reliable sources shows it's own notability. It's not true that a poorly written article that has been plagued by drive-by templating and had it's content hacked out rather that researched, corrected (if necessary) and built on, should be deleted because of the sabotage done by other editors. -- Scarpy (talk) 03:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced, controversial information about living persons is supposed to be removed immediately without discussion. That's WP:BLP. It so happens that he's a very controversial man, so almost the whole article was quotes, claims, and accusations. Without sources, all of that information needed to be removed. Accusations won't help here; I've already dealt with the edit wars over the last few days, and the edits made since then are all in keeping with policy. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 03:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that removing unsourced information from BLP articles is the lazy way to conform with wikipedia guidelines. What happened to this article -- removing every piece of information from it save one sentence and posting seven warning templates to alert a few hundred readers as to exactly how dangerous that one sentence is, when there is ample literature available to base the article on -- is just goofy. Don't be a goof. -- Scarpy (talk) 23:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the article, not on the contributors. It has nothing to do with being lazy, and the editor who removed the information is 100% correct in doing so. Unsourced information must be removed immediately, no matter what. Even if you immediately go and find a source, that's fine - you can put the information back in once you're ready to cite it properly, and not a moment sooner. BLP is currently our most strictly-enforced policy, and it's not because we admins have nothing better to do. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 00:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can be "correct" and still be lazy, or maybe not lazy as much as capricious. Like all wikipedia guidelines, BLP guidelines are only enforced as the whims of editors. The longer you're around wikipedia, the more obvious this is. If someone really cared about the quality of the article they would improve it rather than blanking it. This is a WP:POINT on top of some WP:GAME served on an AfD. -- Scarpy (talk) 03:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, POINT would be speedy deleting the article right now. POINT is about not disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, not just about making a point. AFD is a perfectly valid process that doesn't disrupt anything. If you feel time would be better spent improving the article with sources, you're welcome to do that. The sources you've linked to here are by no means conclusive;I would argue that most of them are not truly "independent" sources, since they are almost exclusively local coverage and therefore profit from whatever fame they can drum up related to their area. My local TV station did a story about people who look like their pets, but they don't have Wikipedia articles. You (or someone else) will actually need to choose some of those sources and use the information they contain to assert some kind of notability in the article. You can keep talking here, or you can do something about it. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 03:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am the person who removed every piece of information from the article. The templates were already there; they were simply more obvious with the lack of words masquereading as content. I disagree with you (Scarpy) that there is ample literature to base on article on. But I could be wrong, and nothing is stopping you from writing it. Mksmothers (talk) 02:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't duplicate things you put on my talk page in the AfD. Look, I'm guessing that I'm with you. Bob Enyart is a blight on Denver, and if I could somehow go back in time and prevent his conception, I would. But the fact is that he's here and notable, and every time some article like this gets axed it makes the people over at conservapedia right; you're letting the political bias of wikipedians come before it's mission to be neutral encyclopedia. Stop the AfD and do some work on the article. -- Scarpy (talk) 03:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks aren't constructive. Let's let the AfD run its course. The course can definitely move in your direction if you chose to add sourced material. I can't find any worthy of inclusion in wikipedia. 63.164.245.62 (talk) 17:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I reviewed the articles mentioned above. They don't appear to be of a purely objective scholarly nature. Enyart appears to be in a rather limited niche with an interested, yet small following. The article in question does not seem to have any newsworthy/wikipedia worthy references that makes him any more than a charismatic church pastor and/or minor activist in a "fringe" social group. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.164.245.62 (talk) 18:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. Does being a guest on a show (Politically Incorrect) multiple times denote sufficient notability? Or simply that he makes for good television? Are they one in the same? - Roy Boy 01:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's borderline. For instance, Kiva Kahl has been on Letterman lots of times and the AfD ended without consensus. A lot of suggestions were to merge and redirect to the show, but that probably doesn't work here because it's not all he's known for. I'd say it comes down to how much relevant information (and how much irrelevant information, for that matter) we can find reliable sources for. So far, not much. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 01:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's the academic articles which justify this--if he's used as a notably bad example, he's notable. Some short quotations from them to demonstrate the importance could well be added. DGG (talk) 03:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete He is barely mentioned in the articles. If he was notable at least one of those articles would be specifically about him. Mksmothers (talk) 03:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be nominator of the article and deleter of most of its content: DO NOT VOTE TWICE!Peterkingiron (talk) 14:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ironically the mention that annoys me the most, may make him notable. "Walt Brown's website now mentions this "heaven on earth" solution and references Pastor Enyart." I've worked on the Walt Brown article from time to time. Brown is a notable conservative, him using Enyart would lead me to think he is notable in that circle. But one could argue as Brown is barely notable, Enyart is even less notable; flip side Enyart did get TV appearances. - Roy Boy 04:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- It is unfortuate that the Nominator has been allowed pregressively to delete most of the content of this article during the AFD process, leaving a virtually meaningless stub. How are the rest of us support to judge an article treated like that? The impression I get from old versions, via history, is that he is a militant anti-abortionist. This article was tagged with "COI". I suspect it is really Mksmothers who suffers from the conflict of interest. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's entirely possible. But COI is just a guideline, and BLP is policy. What I find unfortunate is how so many people have lamented the content removal, but nobody has used the sources to add content and assert notability. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 15:16, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I think we've reached a consensus. There is no usable content on this page. Those who lament the lost potential are yet to take the initiative and add sourced content. Let's put this puppy out of its misery and delete it. Mksmothers (talk) 16:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The current state of the article doesn't really matter in an AFD. It's whether the topic is notable enough to warrant an article. Like him or not, there are sufficient verifiable 3rd party sources available where this person is the subject for this article to meet WP:BIO once someone puts the effort in to put together an informative, well referenced article. --Rtphokie (talk) 23:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Without the sources, and its present state it should simply be "speedy deleted". Who is this "someone" that shoud put in the effort? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mksmothers (talk • contribs) 23:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment' Speedy delete is for articles that should have never been created. This is a stub. Do you feel that all stubs should be deleted or just this one? Also please dont forget to sign your comments.--Rtphokie (talk) 23:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete is also for articles that make no assertion of notability. This AFD makes lots of assertions, but the article itself doesn't. And can't, without reliable sources. To that extent, it does matter what the current state of the article is. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 23:37, 20 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. Punkmorten (talk) 07:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PeanutButterWiki

Appears to be an online wiki community, but there is no indication of their notability, or of meeting WP:N. rootology (C)(T) 22:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 22:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Needs coverage other than fund raising and being mentioned in passing as yet another wiki farm. Equendil Talk 23:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lego K^ontribs T^alk M 01:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable Lego K^ontribs T^alk M 01:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just another non-notable wiki farm. Hundreds of others just like it exist. JBsupreme (talk) 02:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per all above. / Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:49, 16 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 speedy delete. MBisanz ^talk 17:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Eales

No reliable sources found. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 00:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom + notability is not inherited from awards the band Sovereign may have won. Mfield (talk) 01:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't even find sources for Sovereign. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 01:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[61], maybe? Although it doesn't say who issued the award. Corvus cornix_talk 01:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nn. JJL (talk) 03:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I tried working on the article after finding it that way while patrolling. At first I thought it was a hoax because I couldn't find anything reliable to source it. Meh. Synergy 14:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:V. His supposedly award-winning song "King of the Murray" returns 160 ghits and his name combined with sovereign is about the same. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 19:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mfield. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 09:43, 17 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) 23:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cynic Paradise

Unnotable, unreleased album that fails WP:N and WP:MUSIC with NO significant coverage, and article consisting soley of a tracklist. Was redirected to artist page per the music guideline, but was undone so presuming a "contested delete." -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:02, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if it's notable when it's released it can be readded WikiScrubber (talk) 19:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mr.Z-man 01:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article wasn't tagged with {{afd}}. I have added it. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 02:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Didn't even notice Twinkle had failed to tag the article. *doh* -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 02:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect back to Pain (Swedish band), article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC#Albums & WP:CRYSTAL. "Until there is sufficient reliably sourced information about a future album, early information about it should be in the artist's article only, not in a separate article about the unreleased album". Recreate without prejudice once album is released and there is sufficient reliable sources proving it's notability. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 05:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete already and quit the freaking relisting. There are no sources besides primary ones, and this can always be re-created later. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 01:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree with the Hammer. / Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSIC#Albums (unreleased, no significant independent coverage). —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 19:37, 17 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) 21:24, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A State Of Trance 2008

According to WP:MUSIC: "Articles and information about albums with confirmed release dates in the near future must be confirmed by reliable sources and should use the {{future-album}} tag. Until there is sufficient reliably sourced information about a future album, early information about it should be in the artist's article only, not in a separate article about the unreleased album." And: "All articles on albums or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." The label's website is hardly an independent source and the article therefore fails WP:MUSIC. This was explained on the article's talk page, but the only reaction was removal of the speedy delete tag. (Article was initially tagged for speedy deletion. Tag was removed twice by User:A State Of Trance and then a third time by User:Alexander Vince. According to this these users are the same person and this therefore constitutes -perhaps not technically but at least in spirit- a violation of WP:3RR. Note that this edit was made just after the third removal of the speedy tag. All this is not a reason for deletion of course, but I give this history for the sake of completeness). Crusio (talk) 16:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of articles about albums that haven't been released yet. i don't see how this one is any different. -- A State Of Trance (talk) 16:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably true, but: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. --Crusio (talk) 16:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete already and quit the bleeping relistings. No sources, WP:CRYSTAL. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 01:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There will be sources available following its release. It does fail the criterion for inclusion at the moment. E_dog95'^{Hi '} 02:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Given the widespread notability of AVB, as well as the past success of the ASOT show and CD's, there is no doubt that this release will be notable. There also seems to be a significant amount of traffic on music sites, stores, and forums (including AVB's official forum). There also appears to be an official announcement regarding its release. Sourcing concerns are valid, but given that full release is less than a few weeks away, I fail to see the utility in deleting the article at this point. / Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Despite all the apparent excitement, there are still no reliable sources as per WP policy. The text of the article can be saved in your userspace (or that of the creator of this article). Once reliable and verifiable sources become available and show that this album has become notable, you can re-create the article. But at this point, an article is not justifed as WP cannot forecast the future. --Crusio (talk) 09:34, 16 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) 23:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marius Ceteraş

Insufficient notability. The title ("FIDE Master") and rating (2427 Elo) achieved at the game of chess are not strong enough to consider the subject as a notable athlete. The Elo achieved does not even place him in the best 1000 players at the given period. He may become notable one day (say, by getting the more notable title "International Master") but not for the moment. SyG (talk) 07:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - FIDE Master (two levels below Grandmaster (chess)) and no national championships, is insufficient for notability. The article was created by a single edit user - Nemo76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - with lots of detail, so I strongly suspect the article only exists due to editor with WP:COI issues. His strongest claim to notability would be as a chess author, but it looks to me like the publications are mostly pretty minor ones. Peter Ballard (talk)

Delete - Agree with Peter Ballard. He has the IM rating, if not the title, so if he had penned a few heavyweight books, like a John L. Watson, or coached some heavyweight players like a Mark Dvoretsky, then it may be a different story. Brittle heaven (talk) 09:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Relisted multiple times with no support. Jclemens (talk) 17:17, 16 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. Mr.Z-man 17:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Darker Prisons

Self-promotional article about non-notable novel by non-notable author, includes a large section of author's bio. As article states this is the the author's debut work. Only sources are self-referential. Smacks of advertising. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 03:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the 'roo. No reliable sources found. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 03:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability/verifiability issues. Equendil Talk 19:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BK rather badly. Jclemens (talk) 17:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BK and WP:V (both citations being to book's own website). Ka renjc 19:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Jerry and JClemens. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 09:44, 17 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 Withdrawn. NAC. Schuym1 (talk) 22:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Animal Experimentation: Opposing Viewpoints

I can't find any reliable sources for this book. Schuym1 (talk) 00:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak ~~Delete~~ Keep I can't find professional reviews either in Google. However, it meets some threshold standards as it is sold in online stores and is included in some university libraries.--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changing per Eastmain. I can't access (it seems they're only accessible in the US) the reviews but I'll AGF. Can you add inline cites or excerpts from the reviews?--Lenticel ^(talk) 02:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added excerpts from the two reviews. -- Eastmain (talk) 02:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found professional reviews at School Library Journal and Booklist. --Eastmain (talk) 02:01, 16 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 Withdrawn Album has been released, so "delete"s no longer apply. NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Wants To Talk To You

Not enough sources. Has been delayed several times, may never see the light of day. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 03:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Charge number one: TenPoundHammer said "not enough sources." Untrue. It has at least four legit references: Pitchfork Media, LA Record, Gary Wilson's official website and Human Ear Music's official site (the label releasing the album). More can easily be found, as many in the independent music world are anticipating this record.

Charge number two: "Has been delayed several times, may never see the light of day." The album exists, and is merely awaiting full-fledged distrobution. If you're trying to delete this article, then you might as well also go after The Beach Boys' Smile, Guns N Roses' Chinese Democracy, etc. It is notable because Wilson himself is notable as a musician.

It will most likely be released in the next few weeks. A few publications (such as this article from the San Diego Reader) say that the album has already been released, however I've been waiting for the Human Ear website to confirm so. Shamrox (talk) 09:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - future album with no tracklisting --T-rex 13:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. Non of the sources discuss the album in detail apart from his official website, or the record company publishing the album, who aren't independent sources. I've been unable to find any other reliable independent sources, that provide significant coverage of the album. If they can be found, I can be convinced to retract by delete !vote. Silverfish (talk) 13:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:CRYSTAL concerns, verifiability issues, and notability is not inhereted. / Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Kelly ^hi! 04:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the last few days, the Human Ear Music website has been updated to show that the album was released on September 15, as well as the full tracklisting for the recording. I hope that this clears up the matter. Shamrox (talk) 18:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Since album has been released, it now meets WP:NMG#Albums as being an album that the musician or ensemble that recorded...is considered notable Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 20:31, 16 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 redirect to Damien Done#Discography. Stifle (talk) 23:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Love Thongs

Unreleased album. WP:Crystal. No notability; no sources found. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 03:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 04:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Damien Done#Discography as a plausible search term. Article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC#Albums. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 05:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unreleased album from a only marginally notable artist --T-rex 13:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:50, 16 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) 23:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aunsoft FLV Player

The product seems to be non-notable, as searches for reliable sources have only turned up marketing materials and press releases. The article is more of the same, reading as advertisement copy rather than an encyclopedic entry. - Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just one of very many media players. Not notable. lk (talk) 13:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN. We66er (talk) 01:48, 16 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. Punkmorten (talk) 07:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Józef Brandt gallery

Wikipedia is not a repository of media, in this case a gallery. All images are now on the Commons. The broken image in the gallery has been moved, too (Image:Brandt Towarzysz pancerny.jpg). AllynJ (talk | contribs) 05:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per the content criteria and if that isn't enough WP:NOT covers it as well. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this collection of photographs. Cliff smith ^talk 17:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:48, 16 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. Stifle (talk) 23:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarizen

Article on company, with no real claims to fame or importance, nor any reliable sources attesting to any. And yes, press releases are reliable sources for very few things. CalendarWatcher (talk) 11:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Very nicely written, but no hint as to what makes their products special as compared to anyone else's. What's "worthy of notice"? Simesa (talk) 22:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete - As an experienced PM I must say that the simple fact that you can add CAD drawings to the software is something of major note. Also, Clarizen has more of a "claim to fame" than many of the other PM software companies listed here on Wiki. I think that in this case, and in this field, press releases are a reliable source to draw from. P6Manager 10:26, 15 September 2008

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found some news articles from reliable sources, and added them to references section of the article. --Eastmain (talk) 02:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't find the sources particularly convincing, as they're mostly minor. In the case of the item labelled under the New York Times, it's obviously a rewritten press release which didn't even originate with the Times. So no change in my nomination. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 11:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A newspaper story that uses a press release as a source is still a newspaper article. --Eastmain (talk) 14:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The "article" was a passing reference in a product blurb from another magazine, not significant coverage that could be used to establish notability. Flowanda | Talk 10:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Eastmain. Kelly ^hi! 04:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per an actual argument: Wikipedia is not Freshmeat.org. Unless there is some notability to this company, there is no grounds for keeping the article. What we have here is a company that released its first software last year, with no indication that the software has achieved any significance. I'm sure the employees are proud, and when the world takes note then there will be notability. Until then, a reference is not a testimony. Utgard Loki (talk) 17:45, 16 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. TravellingCari 17:12, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Goin' Crazy

Promo-only. Non-notable per WP:MUSIC. Contested redirect. Mdsummermsw (talk) 12:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs, hasn't charted, no awards, no notable covers. Delete as a non-plausible search term. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There wasn't a reliable reference....124.104.155.123 (talk) 07:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: "Ashley wanted to shot a video," we're told, but we have no indication that this single is of any importance whatever. Was it for sale as a single? Did it sell as a single? Was it remarkable for its elaborate use of the canticle form or for its tender shape note singing? No word. No article. No keep. Utgard Loki (talk) 17:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, no need for a redirect either in my opinion. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 18:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable/non-charting song. Fails WP:MUSIC#Songs. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 20:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:33, 18 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 speedy delete. MBisanz ^talk 19:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Kek

WP:AUTO. There is some coverage so no point in CSD or PROD. So does this person pass WP:BIO? The famous web search engine gives some coverage, but much WP:SPS. triwbe (talk) 15:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —triwbe (talk) 15:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable, conflict of interest. Equendil Talk 18:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Company may be notable (that's another discussion) but there is nothing in the 63 unique GHits to suggest this person is. Nuttah (talk) 08:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Copyright violation of this site [62]…Sorry ShoesssS ^Talk 16:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Copyvio, advertising, and a non-notable local ISP. Utgard Loki (talk) 17:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SPEEDY DELETE? I was under the impression that a copyright violation = instantaneous deletion with fire. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 18:36, 16 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. TravellingCari 17:12, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SoberCircle

Unremarkable niche social network. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I posted this article in July to share with Wikipedia readers what many in recovery already know. This is the most legitimate recovery related website I have found. I have been a member there since May of 2008. Why is this just now being marked? I am a regular contributor on Wikipedia under a different username (used a different name here to protect my anonymity) gfp1968 (talk) 16:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a regular WP contributor, you should be aware that articles may be subject to deletion at any time if they fail to meet WP policies and guidelines (in this case, WP:NOTABILITY). You removed COI, advert, and self-referenced templates from Michael Cartwright which prompted me to look at your other edits involving Cartwright, and lead me to this article. I don't believe it is notable, but asserts notability as the "largest recovery community" so was not eligible for speedy delete. I hope that answers your question. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My contributions to the article Michael Cartwright was an effort to expand upon the entry SoberCircle. Deleting the templates was an error on my part, but I don't feel it demerits the relevance of SoberCircle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gfp1968 (talk • contribs) 17:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your actions on other articles have no effect one way or the other on the notability of SoberCircle - I was just answering your question about why it is being nominated for deletion now. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete Not yet notable, only two news mentions for the site (rather than unrelated use of the two words.) [63] Sticky Parkin 21:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacking sources. -- Scarpy (talk) 04:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: 30k users for a recovery board on the Internet is pretty small. No indication that it has had an effect outside of itself or generated substantial note. Utgard Loki (talk) 16:51, 16 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. Consensus is that she isn't sufficiently notable. TravellingCari 17:10, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sheila mikhail

Although she is a CEO there are only 406 Google hits. I'm not too familiar with the inclusion criteria for CEOs and people of this nature, and it's not speediable due to claim of notability. mboverload @ 22:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published^[1] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,^[2] and independent of the subject.^[3]
If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.^[4]

Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Protonk (talk) 16:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article includes a reference to a Triangle Business Journal article that is about her rather than just quoting her about her company. In addition, a google search turned up this News Observer article where she is the primary subject of the article. There are sufficient reliable sources covering her to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite 18:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete whether a CEO is notable depends on what they area cEO of--in this case it seems to be "NanoCor Therapeutics, which is in the process of developing ..." that in process is sufficient to show no present notability. DGG (talk) 22:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being a CEO of a company only establishes notability if the company is itself notable — and we currently don't have articles on any of her companies: neither Life Sciences Law, nor Asklepios BioPharmaceutical, nor NanoCor Therapeutics. Zetawoof_(ζ) 09:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Advertising, actually, and generally publicizing a company that is in a very competitive area. No indications whatsoever that the firms or person stand out from the pack. Utgard Loki (talk) 16:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Forming a company is not an accomplishment, any more than starting a marathon is. Jclemens (talk) 17:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable; promotional Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:52, 16 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. Punkmorten (talk) 07:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We've Got The Toaster

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/We've Got The Toaster

Non-notable film, no reliable sources, mostly red linked actors. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: non-notable film. Schuym1 (talk) 22:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete unless reliable sources can be demonstrated.--Crossmr (talk) 12:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable film. The three names that aren't red-linked seem to lead to completely different people. In fact, one even leads to a fictional character on The West Wing. --Skunkboy74 (talk) 06:36, 16 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. per SNOW MBisanz ^talk 17:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matloub Husayn Ali Khan

Disputed PROD. The subject of this article appears to be a freelance journalist who has had a few articles published in a small local newspaper. I can find no sources that suggest that this person satisfies any of the criteria set out at WP:CREATIVE. Other claims of notability in the article are dubious as the cited sources don't actually mention this person. Delete.-- Jeremy (talk) 00:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Minor coverage from a small town paper != encyclopedic notability. JBsupreme (talk) 02:23, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Some dude. He got on the radio. Localism. Utgard Loki (talk) 16:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Local news coverage does not confer notability as previously stated. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 18:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability criteria as stated. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. An average journalist. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 09:45, 17 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) 23:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AkwaCross Jews

This article makes some very wild and unsubstantiated claims and in the process violates WP:NEO, WP:RS, and WP:NOR as well as WP:NOTMYSPACE. Firstly, a Google search of the term AkwaCross Jews shows about 63 hits, all basically mirrors of this article. Secondly, the article relies on two self-promoting websites and an obscure author without citing actual statements in his works. Thirdly, the article is fuzzy and at times illogical and makes leaps of faith such as when it tries to give all the inhabitants of Akwa Ibom State (one of Nigeria’s 36 states with a population of over 8 million people) and Cross River State (population: 3,104,446) Jewish ancestry from the Ten Lost Tribes (this is a common problem with unproven pseudo-history) -- "Akwa [Ibom Sate]" and "Cross [River State]" presumably the source for the "AgweCross Jews" neologism moniker -- and then, fourthly, contradicts itself by saying that: "In particular, there are about 30,000 practinioners of Jewish religion (Judaism) in various Synagogue services (Shabbat Services)in Akwa Ibom State and Cross River State" (not verified) and other such claims it makes that are outrageous, such as that: "The AkwaCross people are not the only Nigerian group claiming Jewish heritage; there are other communities practicing Judaism in Nigeria, especially the Igbo and the Yoruba." Note: There are 30 million Igbo people and there are over 30 million Yoruba people -- so does that mean that there are instantly more than 60 million "new Jews" just discovered here? Someone is trying to promote something here and it's not working. IZAK (talk) 01:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for above reasons. IZAK (talk) 01:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 01:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 01:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sourcing. This has none. Jclemens (talk) 17:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and examine the sources to see what is supported. If there isa sentence or two not properly worded, it can be edited. eg, "particularly among the Igbo and Yoruba". That done, it's not so extraordinary. DGG (talk) 03:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi DGG: Have you read the article? It is totally iredeemable as it stands because it is not just a "sentence or two not properly worded" but entire paragraphs, the entire body of it in fact, is just hypothetical and non-factual, indeed it's unreal and fantastical material that is interwoven with a few vague strands about links to articles about Nigeria that have absolutely nothing to do with Jews or Judaism. There are so many of these kinds of putative groups today that claim descent from the ancient Israelites, that such types of claims cannot be taken seriously on the say-so of a person who jots some rough ideas down more from imagination than real sources, in violation of WP:MADEUP and even WP:HOAX, then wants to foist it as an "article" on Wikipedia. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 03:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:N, WP:NEO and WP:V --Superflewis (talk) 09:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable per above. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 16:01, 17 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.

^ What constitutes a "published work" is deliberately broad.
^ Sources that are pure derivatives of an original source can be used as references, but do not contribute toward establishing the notability of a subject. "Intellectual independence" requires not only that the content of sources be non-identical, but also that the entirety of content in a published work not be derived from (or based in) another work (partial derivations are acceptable). For example, a speech by a politician about a particular person contributes toward establishing the notability of that person, but multiple reproductions of the transcript of that speech by different news outlets do not. A biography written about a person contributes toward establishing his or her notability, but a summary of that biography lacking an original intellectual contribution does not.
^ Autobiography and self-promotion are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself have actually considered the subject notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it. Thus, entries in biographical dictionaries that accept self-nominations (such as the Marquis Who's Who) do not prove notability.
^ Non-triviality is a measure of the depth of content of a published work, and how far removed that content is from a simple directory entry or a mention in passing that does not discuss the subject in detail. A credible 200-page independent biography of a person that covers that person's life in detail is non-trivial, whereas a birth certificate or a 1-line listing on an election ballot form is not. Database sources such as Notable Names Database, Internet Movie Database and Internet Adult Film Database are not considered credible since they are, like wikis, mass-edited with little oversight. Additionally, these databases have low, wide-sweeping generic standards of inclusion.

[1] "Trojan Vision Statistics". Retrieved 2008-09-05.

[2] "Internet2 Film Festival".

[3] ""Campus Circle" Birnkrant 616 Review". Retrieved 2008-09-05.

[4] ""Campus Circle" Reader statistics Review". Retrieved 2008-09-05.

[5] ""Los Angeles Times" History of USC Film Review". Retrieved 2008-09-05.

[note2-6] What constitutes a "published work" is deliberately broad.

[note3-7] Sources that are pure derivatives of an original source can be used as references, but do not contribute toward establishing the notability of a subject. "Intellectual independence" requires not only that the content of sources be non-identical, but also that the entirety of content in a published work not be derived from (or based in) another work (partial derivations are acceptable). For example, a speech by a politician about a particular person contributes toward establishing the notability of that person, but multiple reproductions of the transcript of that speech by different news outlets do not. A biography written about a person contributes toward establishing his or her notability, but a summary of that biography lacking an original intellectual contribution does not.

[note4-8] Autobiography and self-promotion are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself have actually considered the subject notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it. Thus, entries in biographical dictionaries that accept self-nominations (such as the Marquis Who's Who) do not prove notability.

[note5-9] Non-triviality is a measure of the depth of content of a published work, and how far removed that content is from a simple directory entry or a mention in passing that does not discuss the subject in detail. A credible 200-page independent biography of a person that covers that person's life in detail is non-trivial, whereas a birth certificate or a 1-line listing on an election ballot form is not. Database sources such as Notable Names Database, Internet Movie Database and Internet Adult Film Database are not considered credible since they are, like wikis, mass-edited with little oversight. Additionally, these databases have low, wide-sweeping generic standards of inclusion.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]