Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 December 22

< December 21	December 23 >

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 Bizarre adventure. The AfD is being closed many years later, because it was never properly closed back then, because it was never visible, because it was never transcluded on any of the daily logpages. Technically, it has still been open this whole time.

Nobody else could ever be admitted here, because this door was made only for you. I am now going to shut it. (non-admin closure) jp×g 22:40, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kosher tax

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PLease disregard (ongoing antisemitic vandalism).--Lute88 (talk) 19:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 October 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:35, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:34, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Seven Deadly Sins of Business

Nonnotable book written by a nonnotable author. No hints of notability of either can be found on google, google news, or google scholar. Themfromspace (talk) 23:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since I found a few mentions that I think are not trivial: here, here, and, to a lesser extent, here. Drmies (talk) 00:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per G11 the "references" found above are nothing more than catalogue entries on the site of a company selling the book. Such mentions do not confer notability Mayalld (talk) 07:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you serious? Look at this from the first one: "Title: The seven deadly sins of business: redemption or resignation? Author(s): Bruce Lloyd, Eileen C. Shapiro Journal: Leadership & Organization Development Journal Year: 1999 Volume: 20 Issue: 1 Page: 46 - 50 ISSN: 0143-7739 DOI: 10.1108/01437739910251206." It's a review! In the Journal: Leadership & Organization Development Journal! It just lists the price because that's what a lot of reviews do! Then, look at the bottom of the second one, the part where it says "MARY ELLEN OLIVERIO, CPA, PHD, is professor of accounting, Lubin School of Business at Pace University." It's a review by Mary Ellen Oliverio, who apparently is professor of accounting at Pace University. As for the third reference, I SERIOUSLY doubt that bbw magazine, the power of plus is the publisher of a book on business practices.

Administrator, please have a look at those sources yourself before taking Mayalld's word for their content. Mayalld, please check those references carefully, and consider striking your remarks through. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 15:35, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Amazon.com lists but no longer carries this book and points to no published reviews. The offered sources are from a "Leadership & Organization Development Journal", which wants 13 British pounds to read its review; and from an "entrepreneur.com" website. The notability guidelines for books require general audience reviews as part of its baseline test, and neither of those seem to me to qualify. Instead, this seems to be a promotional article about yet another management fad wannabe text. If you frequent these pages you already know what I think. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:44, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The reviews linked above are perfectly valid for demonstrating notability - there's no requirement that sources should be available online without payment - and here's a review aimed at a general audience. I share Smerdis of Tlön's dislike of this publishing genre, but I try not to let personal taste cloud my judgement about notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:20, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note--honestly, I would have been happy NOT to have found anything that would suggest we keep an article on yet another one such books. But I found it. As for the 13 pounds required to view the article, well, I dislike that too, but plenty of academic publishers in the UK work that way these days (Cambridge UP, Oxford UP, Blackwell...). And the review in Entrepreneur, that webzine is not user-submitted as far as I can tell; the actual review is a reprint from a magazine called Internal Auditor. That's noteworthy enough for WP:N. That Amazon no longer carries the book is of no importance; that they point to no review is also of no importance (those 'reviews' are often just blurbs anyway).

Again, I urge editors to look at the actual evidence, not just at the URL, and not to let taste get in the way. For instance, I strongly dislike manga and anime and science fiction and fantasy and pokemon and role playing games--but I understand that notability has nothing to do with that. Phil, thank you. Drmies (talk) 22:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "Internal Auditor" does not sound like a general interest publication, either. There has been one review in a general interest publication found, though. If this is kept it should be stubbed until it can be rewritten in a neutral tone. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The book appears notable and Amazon is a weak measurement at any time. --Stormbay (talk) 04:26, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 01:20, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Euler–Worpitzky–Chen polynomials

There are no sources to indicate the notability of these polynomials. Statements like the following strongly suggest that the subject of the article is original research:

"The Euler–Worpitzky–Chen polynomials are possibly new. The present author learned them from Peter Luschny in 2008."

Finally, there are apparently no relevant scholar hits containing the words Euler Worpitzky Chen polynomials, which suggests that even if the subject of the article is not original research (doubtful), the title of the article is a WP:NEOLOGISM. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 23:49, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I can't find anything in MathSciNet either. Wikipedia is not a place to publish original research. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 13:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not much understanding of maths past algebra in my head, but I understand No Original Research quite well. Nyttend (talk) 14:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 17:13, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spelltropy

An article about a fictional disease that has no real-world notability. Themfromspace (talk) 23:38, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete utterly non-notable. JuJube (talk) 00:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete indeed--there is no real-world relevance (or coverage) here. Drmies (talk) 00:38, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Complete non-sense and unencyclopedic. Newport Beach (talk) 01:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 00:33, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mini Foxie Club of Australia, Inc.

A Non-notable dog breed club with no evidence of any wider notability provided. The article has been around since June 2004 so maybe there is something I am missing but I don't think so. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 22:36, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 22:36, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--no such evidence provided, and I couldn't find any either. There's the one book mentioned in the article, but that's a history written by the club itself, it seems, and that considerably lessens its independence and relevance. Drmies (talk) 00:43, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only ref provided is a self-published 35-page "book".[1] -- Mark Chovain 00:56, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:30, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maclab

Apparently non-notable software, deleted cca 2 years ago via proposed deletion as PowerLab and MacLab (I am restoring these two pages for full consideration). - Mike Rosoft (talk) 22:24, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep pioneering in its day. I had no idea that they were still around at all, but see the article for the company ADInstruments. There are several good 3rd party reviews listed in google News Archive [2] -- MacWeek, MacWorld-- and a number of scientific papers using their technology [3]. Why don't people search--most important when writing, but also before nominating for deletion. I've been finding the GNews archive increasingly useful for clearing away the underbrush on searches like this. DGG (talk) 23:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep MacLab and PowerLab systems appear to still be used quite heavily in a number of research and academic institutes around the world. Not only are there hundreds of citations on the companies website, there are plenty of articles around on search engines about usage of these systems. --Keepsmilyn (talk) 05:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This could be bias because i started the ADInstruments wiki. But I was surprised to see the PowerLab/MacLab wiki come back on!! When I'm free I will try to update the information on MacLab/PowerLab with more information and references. And just to correct Keepsmilyn sentence, on their webpage there are actually over 6000 citations! : Kirin lover (talk) 09:47, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all three with LabChart, under one title (e.g. PowerLab).
Rationale:
MacLab/maclab is the old name of PowerLab, and LabChart is the visualization end of the whole shebang. All four are part of the same system.
In response to the notion that that there are "hundreds of citations" (worse yet "6000 citations")...
"[Oodles of] citations" is gross marketing hype, and incompatible with what the real world understands under the term "citation". What the company website has done is list papers that merely note that they used the product. In order to ensure experimental reproducibility, researchers are required to note which tools were used in their experiments. The mere indication that such-and-such tool was used does not constitute a "citation" of that tool beyond its raw data value. That the website calls these allusions "citations" is misguiding, and is no more meaningful than suggesting that a researcher who times an experiment is "citing" his watch.
The gimmicky, out-of-context misappropriation of those allusions on a company's website does not qualify them as Wikipedia references, which is how they were forwarded here on WP.
FWIW: I have just cleaned up LabChart. The ADInstruments marketing folks may consider the revised version an example of how to write a sales flyer such that it doesn't violate Wikipedia's WP:NOTADVERTISING policy. -- Fullstop (talk) 13:41, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 13:24, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vince Verhei

Does not establish notability in his career as a wrestler or journalist. Previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vince Verhei Nikki♥311 22:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —Nikki♥311 22:24, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. D.M.N. (talk) 22:27, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nomination.--S R X 22:33, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Delete I don't see what makes him notable. He did not have a notable career as a wrestler, and I don't see what makes him notable as a columnist or his podcast notable. TJ Spyke 22:37, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--there's nothing here that is worth an entry in an encyclopedia. Wait--recreation of a previously deleted article? Doesn't that deserve a piledriver? Drmies (talk) 00:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. The new version is significantly different from the version that was deleted through AFD (speedies are not included in this criterion). - Mgm|^(talk) 09:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, poorly sourced, has been deleted before with good reason. Dr Rgne (talk) 18:18, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 00:33, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Greatest RuHits

No refs for over a year? Time to force the issue (again). AndrewHowse (talk) 22:19, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is here, I would also like to nominate the following related page because I believe neither exist:

Delete There have been multiple attempts to delete and clear this page for an album I do not believe exists outside of Wikipedia. I also can't find any evidence for the existence of Scam (RuPaul song). --Jh12 (talk) 22:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both: notability not established, as per WP:MUSIC. JamesBurns (talk) 08:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 01:07, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

E.L.V

Non-notable, maybe hoax beacuse google dosen't showed so much... The Rolling Camel (talk) 22:08, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree that the lack of any clear evidence supports a delete. Usrnme h8er (talk) 22:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, perhaps speedily for lacking context. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 22:17, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No reference provided, lacks content, speedy delete. Newport Beach (talk) 22:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even if it existed, this article is effervescent. JuJube (talk) 00:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to ELV 76.66.195.159 (talk) 07:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was I should have read the AfD before declining speedy. G3. Jclemens (talk) 08:05, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Article has also been salted by Tanthalas39. MuZemike (talk) 22:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Super Princess Daisy

Fails WP:Crystal, no attempts to claim notability or even prove it exists. Blowdart | ^talk 22:00, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete crystalballery. JuJube (talk) 00:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Couldn't find any sources, fails WP:CRYSTAL and WP:V. Matt (Talk) 00:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (G3) — this is utter horseshit. MuZemike (talk) 06:20, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note — just in case anyone thinks I am emotionally overracting, not that the author, Waffles on Box (talk · contribs), has been indefed and is willing to participate in more vandalism of the encyclopedia as indicated here. MuZemike (talk) 06:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 WP:SNOW. JodyB_talk 01:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brendana

No ghits. WP:MADEUP. Mr. Vernon (talk) 21:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was going to flag it nonsense! Could be an attack on someone called Brendan, on the other hand. Peridon (talk) 21:48, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - Patent nonsense. Happy Editing! — 72.75.108.10 (talk · contribs) _{21:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)}[reply]
Delete — ??? MuZemike (talk) 22:00, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Speedy Delete CSD G1. The Rolling Camel (talk) 22:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Icewedge (talk) 00:57, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wesley Lautoa

Article is unsourced and the only sources available indicate that he plays in an amateur league and has not yet appeared for the New Caledonia national football team; the article fails WP:ATHLETE Jogurney (talk) 21:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Jogurney (talk) 21:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Person isn't notable or popular enough for wikipedia. Newport Beach (talk) 22:36, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - an amateur player who massively fails WP:ATHLETE -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:47, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Govvy (talk) 13:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 17:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. BanRay 00:29, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Since the nominator changed his rationale to keep, there are no delete rationales anymore. (non-admin closure) SWik78 (talk • contribs) 19:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hamund

I could not find any sources whatsoever for this, other than a few token references to him being Sigurd's brother, which hardly makes him notable in my opinion. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 21:37, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. This is a character who appears both in the Sigurd cycle and in the Hagbard and Signy tradition. You find references to him both in Old Icelandic sources and in Gesta Danorum so he's clearly notable.--Berig (talk) 21:50, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Berig - we have lots of articles on legendary figures that are just as minor or more so. This falls well within the norm. Haukur (talk) 22:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ Keep ^{(conceeded to discussion)} with Sigurd as this connection is his primary source of significance/notability. Usrnme h8er (talk) 22:15, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that wouldn't do him justice as the Hagbard and Signy tradition also gives him some notability.--Berig (talk) 22:37, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Berig and Haukur. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 02:35, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and do not merge. Mythological figures in such myths are notable & the sources available are adequate.DGG (talk) 11:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agreeing with other editors, figures in major myths are notable enough for their own articles. I can't remember seeing this character in the Elder Edda or the Volsungasaga, but he shouldn't be that hard to find there; also see this Google Books result, a history of skjaldic poetry. Yes, it's in Norwegian, but it's not that hard to understand what it's talking about, and it speaks of Haamund's connexions with other better-known figures, such as Geirmund and Hjor Halvsson. Bring in someone who understands Norwegian and we could use this as a decent source. Nyttend (talk) 14:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added his entire appearance in the Elder Edda; he is also mentioned in the Volsungasaga, chapter 26, but I don't have time to do that appearance justice at the moment. Nyttend (talk) 15:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Great :)--Berig (talk) 15:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Volsungasaga is also added; I had a little more time than I thought. Nyttend (talk) 15:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Nice! Good job to add references to modern works.--Berig (talk) 15:35, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above arguments and new current article. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 19:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 00:31, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paws and Wires

Future film. Delete per WP:NFF. Mr. Vernon (talk) 21:01, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Wikipedia is not your own webhost. MuZemike (talk) 22:01, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - according to imdb the film is in pre-production which means it fails wiki inclusion criteria. Usrnme h8er (talk) 22:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete, please. This is important information about the new movie. PayPay0 (talk) 23:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WP:NFF Matt (Talk) 00:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NFF. No prejudice towards recreation after reliable sources indicate that production has already begun and when notability can be established. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:55, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as withdrawn quickly by the nom. Non-admin closure. MuZemike (talk) 22:04, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Partners (2009 film)

Article appears to be a hoax. A review of IMDb shows no future movie by this name, the listed stars do not appear to be involved in this project. Additionally, the infobox links direct to an unrelated film. Chasingsol (talk) 20:46, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep [4] It is legit, and in filming according to imdb. Please request the close this AfD. travb (talk) 20:53, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Missed that. Thank you. I'm unfamiliar how to close an AfD. Requesting closure. Chasingsol (talk) 20:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I will request closure. It is not your fault, wikipedia beauracracy is geared toward "delete" you have probably never heard of many of the other tools available to editors. travb (talk) 21:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:33, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional city-states in literature

The article is a list of largely unverified (and, in some cases, pure OR) cities, many of which are nowhere near fitting the required parameters. It does not need to exist; if it did need to exist, it would be more useful as a category. Nutiketaiel (talk) 20:01, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Because everything in that list is already categorized here. Tavix (talk) 20:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup- valid topic for a list, and being covered in a category isn't a valid reason for deletion. Umbralcorax (talk) 20:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is if it does nothing more than a category does. Tavix (talk) 00:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The list links the city-state to the relevant fictional universe which the category can't do. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there is no reason against having both a list and a category, & the list gives more information, such as the work in which they appear Individual cases can be discussed on the talk p. DGG (talk) 11:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Everything on it is a blue or read link. Unlike the "fictional governments", each target link is actually a fictional city-state (AFAIK). Redundancy to a category isn't a reason for deletion (by itself). Protonk (talk) 22:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A1, no context about the book. Author information is duplicate Mgm|^(talk) 09:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why You Should Give A Damn About Gay Marriage

One-line mention of the book; the rest is a bio of Davina Kotulski about whom there is already an article. Propose delete, perhaps a redirect to author bio page. Mr. Vernon (talk) 20:00, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete (A1) — no context about the book (The author is covered in a separate article.) MuZemike (talk) 22:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 03:31, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yuji Rokutan

Unsourced. Only one line. Previously nominated for PROD but author removed the template. Cssiitcic (talk) 19:46, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Stubs alone are not valid reasoning for deletion, and there are articles for every athlete on the team it appears (see Yasuomi Kugisaki, or Hisashi Jogo). This person has played soccer (or football) at a professional level, which establishes notability on its own. Rtyq2 (talk) 20:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The article says he hasn't played. Punkmorten (talk) 21:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Rtyq2 (talk) 20:53, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if he hasn't played. Punkmorten (talk) 21:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - if the apps stat is correct and this "player" has indeed never been fielded. Usrnme h8er (talk) 22:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:42, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable until he plays in a notable match. --Dweller (talk) 10:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 12:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The few ghits available show he has not yet played a pro game in first league. Fails WP:ATHLETE. -- Alexf^(talk) 12:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Govvy (talk) 13:38, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, re-create when and if he ever makes a debut in a fully professional league. Jogurney (talk) 17:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 17:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. BanRay 00:33, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 17:15, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lynn Blau

Unnotable tennis player. Being ranked 1273 in the world doesn't constitute notability. She has never a qualified for a major tournament by her own rights. Tavix (talk) 19:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless there's something I'm completely missing about tennis rankings, I agree with the nominator. --Bobak (talk) 20:00, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy~~ Delete, per above, fails WP:ATHLETE. The Rolling Camel (talk) 21:03, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to learn what A7 really is: "An article about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from questions of verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability." The article specifically states why she is "notable", I am simply questioning that claim and taking it here to sort it out. Tavix (talk) 21:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:ATHLETE. Matt (Talk) 00:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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). Ecoleetage (talk) 00:23, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Montserratian British

Small group of people with no assertion of notability. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. —Cordless Larry (talk) 18:36, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —Cordless Larry (talk) 18:36, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep - For reasons that have already been covered in the discussion when many ethnic group articles were nominated. People are still improving articles, and this one obviously hasn't had a chance. I also believe this article is much more important than some others as it represents a significant number of people from a current overseas territory that have migrated to the UK, there could even be more Montserratians in the UK than Montserrat. other things that could be added to the article are the refugees after the volcano erruption. Please do NOT nominate another article.Stevvvv4444 (talk) 19:39, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Let us do the math: There are about 8,000 Motserratian British people out of 60,000,000 British people. That means that this ethnic group constitutes 0.00013% of the British population. That is not a large enough number to have significant coverage as an ethnic group Tavix (talk) 20:12, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- There are roughly 200 countries in the world, and roughly 40,000 ways of combining any two of them. Unless there is something more to be said than "There's people from Montserrat living in Britain", there's no call for this article. Reyk _YO! 21:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it seems that the topic isn't important/noteworthy enough to be covered. Punkmorten (talk) 21:49, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep Montserratians in Britain are a notable community; the volcanic eruption which caused the mass evacuation has generated a good deal of news content verifying their presence and making them notable - this paper and this paper look reliable as a source of information on Montserratians in Britain. Two more:Respiratory health of M'ians in UK, UK-based M'ians help improve football team (slightly) - not a lot, but enough to establish notability and add some content to the article. Totnesmartin (talk) 23:36, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, perhaps a small group in UK, but after all the largest concentration of Montserratians in the world, more Montserratians live in UK than in Montserrat. This group has thus to be quite notable in Montserratian society. --Soman (talk) 23:38, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm convinced by the argument that the group is notable because it is the largest Montserratian community in the world. I'd therefore like to withdraw the nomination. I've added the claim to notability to the article. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Aitias // discussion 01:26, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Gatena

Non-notable college football player: This is the second AfD, the original closed with only 6 votes and no consensus (2 keep votes were from the article's creators). While I am firmly on the side that WP:ATHLETE should include notable American college football players (not all), this individual has --as of yet-- not done enough to distinguish himself. As of right now, he is a walk-on, non-scholarship player (see here); his only highlight is a scout team award. He has never started a game, had any significant play-time this season, or had a notable-enough college career at any of his previous stops. The article is long and well-written, but does not at any point describe anything that crosses the threshold of notability for Wikipedia.

Putting this article into the greater context: If Wikipedia were to permit all Division I-FBS (top level) scholarship athletes, we'd have approximately [120 (teams) x 85 (NCAA-allowed scholarship players)] 10,200 new articles (at least). If you include walk-ons, that 10,200 number increases with very little room for any opinion on notability. A line must be drawn, and I think this line can be agreed upon. This article is basically a well-crafted vanity page; this article appears to be the work of either the subject, friend/relative, or PR firm. If it were allowed, any player who successfully walks onto any team would have a free ticket into Wikipedia. I could see an overrun of hopeful punters and kickers with the ability to create a "pretty" but ultimately non-notable page.

Because it came up earlier, I should note that the subject's level of education also isn't significant: the same USC roster includes a former high school Gatorade National Player of the Year and strong NFL prospect Jeff Byers, who is an MBA student. His article lists high school awards, but they are not significant like a national Player of the Year, or even a prestigious regional award.

Again: he has never started for USC or seen any significant playing time, which is a major blow to any notability questions. Because I support the inclusion of notable college football athletes in WP:ATHLETE, I feel this article harms the criteria for notable college football athlete. His USC bio shows nothing notable (in fact, unlike key players, there is no detailed information).

If the subject actually builds a successful, notable career at USC --starting in games, gaining significant playing time (and hopefully getting NFL, CFL or even Arena attention), then we have an existing article that can be quickly restored. The precedent has certainly been set: Clay Matthews III rose from a little-known walk-on to being a scholarship starting LB/DE this season and a solid NFL Draft prospect. Until Gatena reaches that point, Delete. Bobak (talk) 18:21, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. —Bobak (talk) 18:21, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Bobak (talk) 18:21, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Bobak (talk) 18:21, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all I would like to say that this is an excellent nomination and I agree with you on (almost) every point. The only thing I would disagree with you on is 10,000 new articles that would be created. I would argue that it would be even more because you have to factor in the several thousand players who formerly played NCAA-D1 football and have not gone pro. That said, Delete per nom. Tavix (talk) 18:40, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Well-written rationale for deletion. I'm a regular contributor to college football player articles, and I too agree that Gatena does not yet deserve his own article per Wikipedia guidelines. BlueAg09 (Talk) 18:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ndenison ^talk 19:15, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Although the requirements for WP:ATHLETE might not have been met my feeling is that he meets the general WP:BIO requirements. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 19:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply, how so? Tavix (talk) 19:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply I fail to see this also. Besides football all he has done is been medically discharged from the Air Force Academy, interned for a Lieutenant Governor of California, had a short aired on CNN, and currently attends grad school. How does he meet WP:BIO? Ndenison ^talk 20:12, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He has been mentioned in the media enough to meet my standards for notability.[5]... I am also a little baffled that this was relisted after only 7 days. If there was a doubt about the closure it should be taken to WP:DRV not relisted. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 20:19, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize that no less than thousands of people are listed in the various high school prospect pages and articles, right? Every major high school player in Los Angeles, Dallas, Houston and every major media market would suddenly become notable under that precedent. The outcome was "no consensus" and would've been better served as a relist. --Bobak (talk) 21:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep well sourced article. I see arguments like "we'd have too many articles if we include an article for every player" (which means truly nothing because we're not talking about every other player, but this player in particular) and "He's a walk-on without a scholarship" which also means nothing in itself--lots of great players were walk-on without scholarship. I see good sources, I see items of interest, I see verifiability. Everything else seems to be a matter of interpretation of what is "notable enough" and I come down on the side of if he wasn't notable, why do we find articles that cover him?--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. Most, if not all, of the sources cited in the article are not "independent of the subject" as defined in WP:GNG. Some of the sources cited include the USC and UCLA student newspapers (the Daily Trojan and The California Aggie, respectively) the athletic websites of the two schools, Pete Carroll's website, and two other websites that look like fansites (daviswiki.org and insidesocal.com). These sources account for 8 of the 12 sources currently listed. As for the other 4 sources, one is Scout.com, a recruiting website that provides information for over thousands of college football and basketball prospects who are not all notable, and much of that information they give is only available to subscribers. Two other references point to a Los Angeles Times blog that seems to cover every little thing that the Trojan football team is doing, and it's also written by a USC alumnus who follows the football team pretty well (see his description). The final source on toacorn.com appears to be an article written by Gatena's hometown newspaper that covers the schools the football players of his high school decided to attend. These references are hardly "independent of the subject" and are "unlikely to be strong evidence of interest by the world at large" per WP:N. Gatena will naturally get coverage by these sources since they are written by those who have strong connections to him. BlueAg09 (Talk) 22:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Agree that this should have gone to DRV if people were unhappy with the outcome. While he barely cuts it notability-wise, he's mentioned non-trivially in plenty of sources. Oren0 (talk) 20:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The outcome was "no consensus" and would've been better served as a relist. Besides, he doesn't cut any notability. He's a walk-on, scout player on a team that I've got Featured Article familiarity with. If you want to see a notable scout team player from that very season, see Mitch Mustain and compare the two. --Bobak (talk) 21:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Notability was proven in the last AFD. No need to re-hash old arguments. Umbralcorax (talk) 20:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How was notability proven in the "no consensus" previous AfD? The arguments given for keep were "he is going to be something big". And incorrect interpretations of awards (he was given a "scholar-athlete" award in high school, not notable as an athlete by any means). He is one of tens of thousands of people are listed in the various high school prospect pages and articles. --Bobak (talk) 21:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reads as if he is a great guy, but not notable enough to have his own wikipedia article. No notable athletic accomplishments that I can see.--2008Olympian^chitchat 02:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet either WP:ATHLETE or the general notability requirements of WP:BIO. Lots of references, but they all have significant problems for a notability claim (school papers and such). gnfnrf (talk) 00:05, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete please - I was surprised to see this had an article on the 2008 season article roster. Just compare him to the others linked, he's not notable for football. --32.145.34.129 (talk) 20:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. As stated previously, notability was proven in the last AFD. No need to re-hash old arguments. The amount of athletes who meet wikipedia's notability standards are irrelevant as are the other players on a said athletes team. It sounds like user Bobak has a personal vendetta against the articles subject. If other USC Football Players have a wikipedia why not this player? Furthermore, why not all players who meet wikipedia's standards for WP:ATHLETE?

This online encyclopedia was established to document information using a set of unified rules and standards. This article meets those rules and those standards. Why is this case being repetitively disputed by the same wikipedia user using the same arguments? According to this article which does cite various credible sources, Gatena has received many accolades, earned an honorable discharge from the United States Air Force, played for 3 division 1 schools, and has accomplished earning his masters degree all while competing at the highest level of amateur football possible. Gatena's online USC bio was never finished because he was a late transfer not because he is not credible. Comparing Gatena to his teammates is irrelevant. If his teammates meet the standards for WP:ATHLETE then they should have an article.

By comparing Gatena to others you create a variable standard for establishing WP:ATHLETE bio's. One could speculate that if Gatena was still playing for UC Davis he would be the only graduate student on his football team and be a possible All American. Then would he be credible enough? If wikipedia used team comparison as a standard for listing an article many professional and amateur athletes who are second string on championship teams could not be listed on wikipedia. Furthermore, those who are first string on the worst teams would have bio's. This is why wikipedia has established consistent standards for WP:ATHLETE, so there could be a fair, uniformed standard for listing individuals who fall under WP:ATHLETE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99Legend (talk • contribs) 01:03, 26 December 2008

Reply. When others compare Gatena to other college football players, they are not making a decision under AP:ATHLETE, they are doing so under WP:BIO. None of them are admissible under WP:ATHLETE, which requires a football player to play in a "fully professional league." The "highest level of amateur sports" refers to Olympic or World Championship competition, not college-level participation. No college football player meets the guideline just by playing college football, they have to have significant coverage beyond just playing. See Colt McCoy for example. Professional football players, however, need nothing beyond playing pro football, see Kerry Cash. So the question to ask here is whether he meets the general WP:BIO standards of notability, and I think he does not. You are free to argue that he does, but if your argument is that he meets WP:ATHLETE, you misread that guideline.--2008Olympian^chitchat 07:16, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. Well in that case Gatena's bio clearly falls under the "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" category. The rarity of his playing for 3 different division 1 football schools should alone qualify him for the WP:BIO, let alone the uniqueness of his graduate school standing and honorable discharge from the United States Air Force. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99Legend (talk • contribs) 11:00, 26 December 2008

Keep Bobak compares Gatena, a two time schoarlship athlete and one time walk on who has previously started at another Division 1 football school to college walk on kickers and punters that will never play. Clearly this is a bias and invalid comparison. This athlete has not only played and started for one division 1 college football team, but he has played in games for two different division 1 college teams and been a member of three. Additionally, his transfer case is very unique and the only one of its kind. Gatena has transferred to 3 different division one football schools without penalty of ineligibility. That fact alone makes this bio significant enough to remain on wikipedia.Gosugatena (talk) 06:28, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The beauty of Wikipedia is that anyone can add an article about anything, and one expects only factual corrections by those with something to add or emend. There is no "means test" or popularity contest, nor should there be. With search engines one can find the material one wishes without having to see much of what one does not, depending on the cleverness of one's search terms. Any notion that one has to reach some level of excellence to be listed flies against the whole nature of the worldwide web. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sternlight (talk • contribs) 04:29, 26 December 2008

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 close as keep. Querrelous and pointy nomination. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:08, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Body thetan

Scientology-cruft, I'm not seeing any non-trivial, reliable third-party sources for this. Much of it is cited to Hubbard's own writings and tapes, which are primary sources. The "Secrecy" section mentions some third-party sources, but a careful look indicates that these sources are all about OT III in general and its surrounding secrecy, not the specific concept of "body thetans."

Google Books shows 3 hits for "body thetan," all trivial references of a line or two. Google Scholar shows just 2 hits, one of which is a primary source and one of which is not reliable (holysmoke.org). There doesn't appear to have ever been any substantial discussion of the concept of "body thetans" in any sources except Hubbard's own writings. *** Crotalus *** 17:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - vastly important Scientology concept at the higher levels, and arbitrarily declaring non-Scientology sources "not reliable" is not good editorial judgement. Are you sure it's appropriate for you to be going on a Scientology-related deletion spree in the midst of your participation in a Scientology arbitration case? - David Gerard (talk) 18:27, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A little OR on my part suggests that their belief in this topic is pretty much at the very core of Scientology. Whatever one's thoughts on Scientology as a whole, this to me rises above the standard of cruftyness. Arakunem^Talk 18:38, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom as Scientology cruft. Tavix (talk) 20:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, WP:SNOW, obvious neologism, we really ought to have a speedy category for "Me and my friends just made this word up." NawlinWiki (talk) 20:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SKILLET

WP:NOT Wikipedia is not a dictionary.Speedy deletion was contested. The Rolling Camel (talk) 17:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable evidence of its use. Peridon (talk) 18:00, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A pedantic remark: The speedy deletion request was not contested, but rather was declined (by me). WP:NOT is explicitly not a valid rationale for speedy deletion, but it is a valid rationale for deletion after an Articles for Deletion discussion. AGK 18:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it it were up to me, I would have speedied it. It is clearly not encyclopedic and wikipedia is not a dictionary. Tavix (talk) 18:34, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@Tavix:
Under what criterion would you have speedied this article? WP:NOT is not a valid criterion. (Cf. WP:CSD#Non-criteria.) I dislike utilising bureaucracy to maintain editorial professionalism, but I truly don't think individual administrators ought to be making decisions as to whether an article belongs on Wikipedia outside of the few situations tightly-defined by the Community; that was my thinking in declining this, at least—and the Community's, in authoring WP:CSD.
AGK 18:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would delete it under A1 as there is little to no context in the article. I'm no admin so I may be wrong, but A1 seems reasonable. Tavix (talk) 19:03, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It does provide context. It says exactly what the word is supposed to mean. The reader is not left guessing. - Mgm|^(talk) 19:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about when to use the word, what part of speech it is, examples of the word used in a sentence, etc. I would agree it has some context but the CSD category says "significant context" in which it doesn't have. Tavix (talk) 19:49, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At its current state, I'd say a g11 would be reasonable as well because all it is doing is promoting the word, or G3 as it is vandalism (not contributing to Wikipedia whatsoever), or even G1, but that is a stretch. I'd delete it soon, because not getting rid of it is just encouraging them.Tavix (talk) 23:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I see a pretty good motivation for G1. Usrnme h8er (talk) 23:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NFT dicdef. - Mgm|^(talk) 19:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Usrnme h8er (talk) 22:38, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 13:10, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Georgetown International Relations Club

Contested speedy. A non notable student society that fails WP:GROUP. No evidence of coverage in independent reliable sources offered in the article and none available on searching. Nuttah (talk) 17:55, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Goodbye per nom. The Rolling Camel (talk) 17:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remark. The speedy deletion request was not "contested," but rather was declined (by me). WP:NOT is explicitly not a valid rationale for speedy deletion, although it is a valid rationale for deletion after an Articles for Deletion discussion. Wikipedia is simply not in the game of mass-deleting any article that possibly doesn't conform to our idea of what Wikipedia is without due discussion—hence the requirement for WP:NOT deletions to be made after an AfD discussion (rather than further to a speedy deletion request). Comment stricken; the WP:NOT part is not pertinent, per Nuttah, to this discussion. AGK 18:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment. This is the second such correction I've had to make. Curiously, the other correction was on a nomination by The Rolling Camel, who has commented above—it's a small world, eh? AGK 18:20, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. WP:NOT was not the reason given for speedy deletion, so I fail to see the relevance of your remark, especially as it contradicts the reason you gave for declining/contesting the speedy. It was nominated as A7:a group or club that does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject, which is a valid rationale for speedy deletion - hence the A7. Nuttah (talk) 18:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A7 does not cover issues of WP:NOT, but rather issues of WP:N. That's the relevance of my remark. AGK 18:48, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For crying out loud. I nominated as A7:a group or club that does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject. Which part of that relates to WP:NOT? It is lifted directly from the critera. Nuttah (talk) 18:53, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh. … Sorry, that was my fault; I became mixed up between this AfD and the other one I linked above.
On the subject of why I declined the speedy deletion request: There seems to be some common misconceptions over CSD at play here. A7 is used for articles that do not indicate notability; this article has offered a reason why it might be notable. In that case, we discuss the subject at AfD, to ascertain whether it is notable. Indications of notability and evaluations of notability are two completely different things; cf. Wikipedia:SPEEDY#A7.
Make sense? (And thanks for being patient with me whilst I finally catch up. :-)) AGK 18:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No mix up, I just disagree that this article has offered a reason why it might be notable. Nuttah (talk) 19:03, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless nontrivial independent reliable sources such as articles in major newspapers about the history of the club can be found to establish the club's notability. Google News Search finds some candidates but most seem either to be about unrelated organizations or to mention the club only trivially (as the host for some event or as an organization that the subject of an article belongs to). As it is, I agree, this looks like a very plausible candidate for A7 speedy deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:09, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:32, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--Can't find notability either for this club. Drmies (talk) 05:15, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 06:12, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:12, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 01:10, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Swim ~

A non-notable record label that fails WP:CORP because there isn't any substantial coverage in secondary sources. The only sources I could find is an offical website that hasn't been updated for almost a year (even though they stated it would be "revamped soon"), a myspace, and two interviews from unreliable sources. Based on that, they aren't notable. Tavix (talk) 17:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Bobak (talk) 18:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability per WP:CORP. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 18:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not convinced by the reliability of the interview sources. Articles main contributor has a COI. Duffbeerforme (talk) 13:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 03:34, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Derrty Time (album)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Derrty Time (album)

Could not find any sources that confirm the release of this album? The one citation listed just plays the "confirmed track" and provides zero info about the album. Wolfer68 (talk) 17:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Future album without substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Fails WP:MUSIC. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:34, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per above. --Bobak (talk) 18:49, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with the Hammer^TM until the actual release, or some significant coverage. Arakunem^Talk 18:54, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, throw a WP:CRYSTAL at it and smash it up in to little bitty pieces. Should be recreated if actually confirmed. Tavix (talk) 20:20, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL.--Ashbey_{Happy Holidays} Ӝ 14:58, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Caulde 10:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lucky the Koala

Nonnotable animal, in news for one incident, see WP:BLP1E. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:03, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete No, no, no... Not a chance. Non-notable and written like an advertisement. The Rolling Camel (talk) 17:10, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CSD candidate: A3; this article doesn't have any significance for justification for being in the namespace. Caulde 17:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy, G11. Tagged as such. Tavix (talk) 17:39, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I read the Wikipedia:Field guide to proper speedy deletion today. and I can't see a valid speedy in either of those criteria. A3 doesn't apply as it has content that could be called a stub, A11 doesn't apply because it's not promoting anything (not blatantly anyway) and BLP obviously doesn't apply because it's a koala and not a person. - Mgm|^(talk) 19:04, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No content could be interpreted as "no substantive or meaningful content" - as in this case. Caulde 19:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its not like it matters, it's going to be deleted anyway. At this point, I could even argue WP:SNOW. Tavix (talk) 20:04, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per above. --Bobak (talk) 19:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS. This doesn't look like a valid CSD candidate. Epbr123 (talk) 19:17, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, mainly per WP:SNOW. You could argue A1 as there is virtually no context given. However, "virtually no" is not necessarily the same as plain "no." A3 doesn't readily apply to articles like these but rather to linkfarms and what-not. MuZemike (talk) 22:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - why is this at AfD? Totnesmartin (talk) 23:38, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If this discussion is any indication, the koala's name is a misnomer. WP:NOT#NEWS. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 01:28, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hypothesis of linear regression

Over-sophisticated and unnecessary given numerous other articles related to linear regression Melcombe (talk) 17:04, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect. This idea is sufficiently covered in other articles such as linear regression and the way it's covered here is just an exercise in overly complicated notation. If this were specifically about testing the hypothesis with, e.g. a derivation of a likelihood-ratio test and its null probability distribution, one could perhaps consider that a reason to keep this, but it's not clear that that wouldn't belong in other articles treating regression. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unnecessary fork —G716 <^T·_C> 04:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 close as keep. Querrelous and pointy nomination. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:08, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:

Tim Bowles

Same as with Michelle Stith, no reliable third-party sources really discuss the subject himself, only his activities on behalf of an organization. The sources are all about Scientology and related litigation, not Tim Bowles as a person. *** Crotalus *** 16:36, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, querulous re-re-re-renomination - David Gerard (talk) 18:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, after one or two AfDs, I can understand the merit for re-nomination. But a fifth nomination? The consensus is clearly to keep. ←Spidern → 18:53, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not only is this the 5th nomination of the article, the article also blatantly tells the guy is notable: "He is the executive director of Youth for Human Rights International, and is a Commissioner on the Board of Advisors of the Citizens Commission on Human Rights, both Church of Scientology sponsored organizations." That's verifiable. -Mgm|^(talk) 19:00, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Aitias // discussion 01:29, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2001 Summer Camp Music Festival

Co-nominating the following articles;

Delete nn listcruft Mayalld (talk) 16:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm simply separating the music festival pages by year. See the work I've done for Bonnaroo, Wakarusa, 10,000 Lakes Festival, Coachella, etc. If you've got a better way to do this, go ahead and edit it, but this information should not be removed. -- Chupon (talk) 16:31, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you for the pointer to further listcruft for future AfD attention Mayalld (talk) 22:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as listcruft. All it does is list the different bands that played in the music festival. It's just a bunch of WP:TRIVA. Tavix (talk) 17:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not all that's in the article. Each year lists important information about the changes to the festival. It's cited, includes links to other article and reduces the size of the main article. Would you rather have all of this in one page, as it was before? If you're going to nominate this, then nominate all the other music festival pages that are broken down by year. I'm open to suggestions on a better way to do this, but simply deleting these pages is not the best route, in my opinion. -- Chupon (talk) 17:46, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everything that is not the lineup only takes up like three lines per article. That part can be merged to the main article. The line-ups, however, are listcruft and should be deleted. Tavix (talk) 20:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the changes to the festival into the main article. Since Wikipedia is not a programme book, I recommend not merging the bands (instead mention a few of the representative ones or some special ones on the main page in context. Splitting is only really neccesary when there are space constraints. - Mgm|^(talk) 18:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per MGM. Usrnme h8er (talk) 22:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back into Summer Camp Music Festival where it was before. (Or maybe merge into some "List of Summer Camp Music Festivals", but that seems silly.) Individual years of Summer Camp don't appear to meet WP:Notability. I don't see "important" information in these year articles, but maybe encyclopedic information nonetheless, assuming Summer Camp itself meets WP:Notability. I don't see a problem with the size — so far, the year articles are barely bigger than when they were in the main article; as User:Tavix noted, a few years have a couple new lines about changes, but some don't even have that. If the band lists are left in, the prose so far will barely make a dent in size anyway; and, if the band lists end up being considered WP:Listcruft, then the main article will end up pretty small even when merged. --Closeapple (talk) 02:39, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all: non-notable listcruft. JamesBurns (talk) 07:54, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All right I've merged them back in. Do whatever you want with the yearly articles. -- Chupon (talk) 18:44, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 00:28, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Stith

AfDs for this article:

Consensus was recently formed not to have an article on Wikipedia's David Gerard. Now I've seen this article mentioned at a request for arbitration and it seems to be no better founded. Yes, Michelle Stith has been quoted in a variety of reliable press sources (as David has), but she hasn't actually been the subject of any such coverage as far as I can tell. In the David Gerard AFD, User:Uncle G and User:Friday noted that the sources cited there were primarily about Wikipedia, not David himself. Well, the same applies here: all the sources are not really about Michelle Stith, but about Scientology and the controversy that surrounds it. *** Crotalus *** 15:49, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep as the nominator mentions, a variety of reliable press sources mention this woman, Crotalus is attempting to carve out an exception to WP:V verifiablity and notability that doesn't exist. travb (talk) 16:35, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would be very interested in seeing a definition of notability that would include Michelle Stith but not David Gerard. They're both practically the same case: individuals who sometimes appear in the papers, but only as spokespeople for an organization and not as article subjects in their own right. A good argument could be made for keeping both, or for deleting both, but not for keeping one and deleting the other. *** Crotalus *** 17:50, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not consistent because the world is not consistent. Attempting to make it more consistent than the world it's describing is a mission inherently doomed to failure. Document, don't worry about consistency - David Gerard (talk) 23:44, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - way more notable than me. (Very happy to be a redirect, thank you.) Wikipedia is not consistent, and that's a feature. I'm sure I and others said this to you in another context something like two years ago - David Gerard (talk) 18:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The notability guideline only really comes in if being verifiable doesn't prove enough evidence someone is notable (hence all the music guidelines and such). Since this fully referenced article claims she's "President[1] of the Church of Scientology of Los Angeles branch of the Church of Scientology in the U.S. state of California." they're clearly notable. - Mgm|^(talk) 18:50, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Whilst the nomination is pointy, it may have a good point. The woman is notable only for being president of the branch of an organisation. We don't even have an article on the branch. Sure, she's quoted in the media, but the quotes are not ABOUT her. Most people who serve as media spokespeople for organisations get quoted (see David Gerard) that doesn't make them notable unless they become the story. There's no evidence that this woman has. I am willing to be convinced otherwise, but as it stands I don't think there's a case for this article (except for the fact that Wikipedia hates Scientology). Can you show me any source ABOUT her?--Scott Mac (Doc) 19:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This person is clearly notable in her executive and public position with the cofs. BTW, I never heard of David Gerard until well into my editing experience on Wikipedia. Stith can be found quoted in many articles about scientology. Actually, I think that comparing the notability of Stith to Gerard is bizarre.--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 22:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is. But to return to the point, can you give me any sources about her? If you can, I'll reconsider my opinion.--Scott Mac (Doc) 21:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you so hung up on that if the article is verifiable and if she is deemed notable by criteria other than the WP:GNG? - Mgm|^(talk) 09:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've no idea about the "GNG" - never read such things. However, if we allow bios on the strength of "is used as rent-a-quote" in the media, then we'll have bios on the spokespeople of every middle-level organisation, and particularly controversial ones. That would make little sense. Such people should be mentioned in the article about the organisation it at all. The differential between someone who is simply rent-a-quote and an independently notable person in that the independently notable person has media interest in themselves. They have at some point become the subject of the story. It is also when that happens that we get genuine biographical information in our sources (as opposed to personal information which happens to be used as anecdote in passing). That's why I ask for sources about her, if we don't have those all we have is a private person doing a media related job and not the subject of a bio. Do we have such sources or not?--Scott Mac (Doc) 09:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sufficient sourcing by our std guideline.DGG (talk) 11:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Std guide? Can we please debate this article here, rather than quote acronyms that even long-established users like me have no idea about? Unfortunately remarks like this make the deletion process sound like a exclusive club with obscurantist rules. Can you be specific on what the sources are, and how they meet my question, or point out why my argument is wrong? I'm genuinely willing to be convinced.--Scott Mac (Doc) 12:05, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete About as notable as David Gerard. RMHED (talk) 21:43, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 00:27, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of locales in Britain where ant species have become locally extinct

An unencyclopaedic and unreferenced article which I wouldn't have though meets the notability guidelines. There is already List of ants of Great Britain which can cover this information Jack (talk) 15:40, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Merged by nomintor Nominator should have elected to have this page merged instead of deleted. travb (talk) 16:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is almost silly. This is trivial information that really shouldn't even be included in the main article. Also, it isn't a likely search term so a redirect would be pointless. Just ditch the article because this WP:TRIVIA shouldn't be on here. Tavix (talk) 17:36, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of ants of Great Britain, probably in the form of slapping more footnotes noting that certain species are now extinct. MuZemike (talk) 22:19, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: None of the species listed on the page are extinct in Great Britain; the page talks of specific towns where the ant species were recorded previously, but weren't in more recent studies. Jack (talk) 22:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, maybe merge some data but as a redirect this serves no purpose. Usrnme h8er (talk) 22:53, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect would serve a purpose if something was merged. It would give proper credit for the merged information and show when it was added. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete every species has become extinct in some patch of the world somewhere (except rats maybe), but we don't have lists of such places, let alone ones specifying different types of creature. On the bright side, nominate this for WP:DAFT. Totnesmartin (talk) 23:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 03:37, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nine Mile Ride

Non-notable road. Epbr123 (talk) 15:10, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy, pretty obvious one too. Tavix (talk) 17:46, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Could end up being notable, but in this state --without any references-- its a badly written article that should be deleted. --Bobak (talk) 18:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (A1) — no context = this article is going The Highway. MuZemike (talk) 22:21, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy -This is a sad excuse for an article. No notability or context.Joeycfc (talk) 07:55, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (CSD A7). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PSPube

See WP:NOTABILITY, and WP:CSD#A7 Imperat§ r^(Talk) 14:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - CSD a7(web), Non-notable website http://www.pspube.com/ Unpopular Opinion (talk) 14:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete seems like the proper course of action. Drmies (talk) 14:54, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 03:38, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GoGui

Disputed prod. I cannot determine by reading the article whether this is a notable piece of software or not. A Google search didn't help me; my search yielded the usual download sites and PR pieces, and using google news showed no useful hits on this subject. Creator entered into discussion but did not comment on notability or add any cites that would demonstrate notability before removing prod, so I'll bring it here for discussion. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:20, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Computer stuff (compared to say fine art) gets more than it fair share of web mentions. The fact that there are no WP:RS, and the town in Mali gets more hits, confirmss this is non notable. I found this mention - but strengthens the case [6] for non notable since it is so trivial. Where is the articla in at least a computer magazine?Obina (talk) 14:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable --Blowdart | ^talk 15:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No RS. Sounds like G11-Advertisement to me, even though it's free. Google main hit is the site's own website. I do play GO, but have not seen enough independent sources to assert notability yet. -- Alexf^(talk) 22:21, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Speedy?) Delete As per G11 and Alexf. Cheers. Imperat§ r^(Talk) 15:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable at this time - DustyRain (talk) 16:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:26, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Derek ogilvie

Celebrity hound with no notability, as stated in the single notable reference included (The Guardian UK): Funniest Moment Of The Year was the sight of Derek Ogilvie, Channel 5's truly horrid "Baby Mind Reader", bursting into self-pitying tears during The Million Dollar Psychic, when his powers were tested by scientists and found to be non-existent. Oliver Twisted (Talk) 14:04, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability. Mayalld (talk) 14:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--no notability. Google delivers nothing but non-notable stuff (blogs etc.), and this guy's mainly a bad psychic, if I am to believe some of the hits. Drmies (talk) 14:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those blog hits are mainly a result of a spamming campaign of people who don't like Ogilvie. Have you read the Dutch newspapers in the last half year? He even got a full page interview in one of the countries free newspapers (Spits, Metro and De Pers). If we are to believe James Randi all psychics are fake, but we don't judge them on their supposed powers, but on the verifiability of their media attention. - Mgm|^(talk) 18:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't think Ogilvie or others of his ilk could ever be descibed as notable, but given that he's had a fairly controversial national TV show in the UK (The Baby Whisperer) as well as the various other TV appearances, I think his profile is high enough in the UK to merit a short Wikipedia entry (though something a lot better written and researched than this one). --Funkanova (talk) 15:50, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He didn't do the show just in the UK. He also presented a local version in the Netherlands. According to recent news article I read viewed by at least a couple million people in the Netherlands alone. Also the author of a book published with a notable publisher in multiple countries. Also, from our own article on James Randi: "Starting on April 1, 2007 only those with an already existing media profile and the backing of a reputable academic would be allowed to apply for the challenge." So even though he failed said challenge, he's still a notable 'psychic' with enough media coverage according to a skeptic. (Disclosure: I've got this article on my wishlist and if it wasn't created, I probably would've done so myself this year). - Mgm|^(talk) 18:39, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - but shouldn't the surname be capitalized? Usrnme h8er (talk) 22:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it should, but that's something to change after the AFD has finished so links don't get broken. - 131.211.211.25 (talk) 08:18, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 03:39, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thomson Airways Winter 2008-09 Schedules

Fails WP:TRAVEL, wikipedia isn't a travel guide. Oscarthecat (talk) 13:36, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Not a travel guide or collection of stats. Unpopular Opinion (talk) 13:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:IINFO Mayalld (talk) 13:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unencyclopedic article, just a collection of data as mentioned above. This belongs on their official website, not here. Chamal ^talk 14:21, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Talk about trivia...as noted above, this really isn't what Wikipedia is meant for. I think I remember somewhere where it's stated that a page of bus schedules would be inappropriate, and this is plainly no different. Nyttend (talk) 14:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a WP:DIRECTORY. It's not like anyone that will be traveling on Thomson Airways this winter would think to check Wikipedia. Tavix (talk) 17:48, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is clearly the sort of directory we don't want especially when they're exactly like bus schedules. - Mgm|^(talk) 18:31, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above. --Bobak (talk) 18:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You've caught me in the middle of updating a page. I feel that this page (once finished!) will be very interesting and useful. I have placed hangon and rescuetags on the page and think that you should wait until we feel the page is fit for reassessment. Please offer any suggestions on how to go about ths, but for now, I will continue to update as I get more info. Please help if you can! - Lwebdan|talk 19:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No matter how much you update it, the topic fails WP:TRAVEL - wikipedia isn't a travel guide. This article may be of interest to you, but that doesn't automatically mean it warrants inclusion in wikipedia. Suggest you create the page on WikiTravel instead. --Oscarthecat (talk) 08:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a WP:DIRECTORY. As far as I'm concerned, there's not much you can do to rescue the article. The very concept of an article on a timetable is contrary to Wikipedia policy. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 01:09, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thomson Airways Winter 2009-10 Schedules

Wikipedia isn't a travel guide (WP:TRAVEL) and listing all flights/schedules by airlines seems inappropriate. Oscarthecat (talk) 13:35, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Not a travelguide or collection of stats. Unpopular Opinion (talk) 13:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:IINFO, article doesn't seem to have any encyclopedic value. Chamal ^talk 14:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just as trivial as last year's schedules; as I said there, "Talk about trivia...as noted above, this really isn't what Wikipedia is meant for. I think I remember somewhere where it's stated that a page of bus schedules would be inappropriate, and this is plainly no different." Nyttend (talk) 14:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Travel schedules are the exact sort of thing that is not notable. Regular departure and destination places, yes. Complete flight details, no. - Mgm|^(talk) 18:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You've caught me in the middle of updating a page. I feel that this page (once finished!) will be very interesting and useful. I have placed hangon and rescue tags on the page and think that you should wait until we feel the page is fit for reassessment. Please offer any suggestions on how to go about ths, but for now, I will continue to update as I get more info. Please help if you can! - Lwebdan|talk 19:12, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't waste time trying to rescue this, it's inappropriate. Suggest you try wikitravel instead of wikipedia. --Oscarthecat (talk) 08:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a WP:DIRECTORY. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a travel guide and transient and not encyclopedic. MilborneOne (talk) 23:09, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 00:26, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dominican British (Dominica)

Small group of people with no assertion of notability. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. —Cordless Larry (talk) 13:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —Cordless Larry (talk) 13:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - agreed there isn't much information on the article, but it is definately a notable group of several thoudand members, unlike Bahamian British, which I believe should probarbly be deleted. Stevvvv4444 (talk) 17:31, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete small group of people, not enough to really merit an article. It's only 6,000 people out of over 60,000,000 British people, which leaves .001% of all British people are Dominican. Tavix (talk) 17:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Size doesn't matter if they're a distinct group and there is information for an article. Why should it? DGG (talk) 05:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing: "there's information for an article". - Mgm|^(talk) 09:10, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I see it, the article fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY because it doesn't establish that the intersection is "in some way a culturally significant phenomenon". A small group could be notable, but not in this case. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:24, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. Distinct, notable ethnic group with a documented history in the UK, and many notable individuals linked in article. Improve our project rather than insisting, month after month, on depleting it. Badagnani (talk) 19:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

**Are you going to give a reason? Please see How to discuss an AfD. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:23, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 05:25, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for providing your reasoning. Can you supply sources when you say there is a documented history of this group in the UK? They would be useful in the article. I don't think the argument about some members of the group being notable makes the group itself notable. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:59, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 00:26, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bahamian British

Very small group of people with no assertion of notability. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. —Cordless Larry (talk) 13:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —Cordless Larry (talk) 13:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a small group of British people. There are only 1,800 people out of over 60,000,000 British people, leaving only .00003% of British people as Bahamian. Tavix (talk) 17:53, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We decide whether or not to delete an article not based on some arbitrary numerical threshold, but instead by the amount of attention which reliable, independent sources have previously devoted to a topic. The question we're trying to resolve in this discussion is whether such sources exist. cab (talk) 09:00, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable ethnic group; could be expanded. Badagnani (talk) 19:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please explain why you think the intersection is notable, rather than just stating that it is. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:39, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 05:24, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the usual barrage of searches ("bahamians * in (london/england/britain/the united kingdom") does not show any sources which could be used to write a proper article on this topic. cab (talk) 09:00, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 20:10, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vettaikaran

AfDs for this article:

Fails WP:NFF. The article was previously deleted for the same reason and to my knowledge there has been no additional development. Speedy G4 was declined. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 13:17, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. --Oliver Twisted (Talk) 13:19, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the previously deleted version was entirely unreferenced, which's why I declined the G4. Regardless of the quality of the referencing (which I haven't evaluated), that has to be a substantial enough change to disqualify it. Wily D 14:36, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - With a proper rewrite there may be enough for a stub, but I'm not sure how notable this is. --Bobak (talk) 19:03, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete without prejudice. Per the provided sources, talk about this probable film is starting to tweak the General Notability Guideline, but there's no harm in waiting a few weeks to bring it back once principle filming has begun. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: notability not established. JamesBurns (talk) 08:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 03:41, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

School food punishment

Delete per WP:GARAGE. NN band with no reliable sources Mayalld (talk) 13:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per Nom. --Oliver Twisted (Talk) 13:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep　I object. This band article is in Japanese wikipedia, too.--丫 (talk) 13:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC) — 丫 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment Recently added in ja as well. The fact that somebody is capable of adding the article to two different language wikis is not evidence of notability. Mayalld (talk) 13:24, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A Google search for "school food punishment" [7] only turns up things such as YouTube videos, MySpace pages, and online reviews, most of which admit that the band isn't very well-known. Searches on Google Books [8] and Google News [9] turn up absolutely no results related to the article's subject. As such, there is no evidence of reliable sources that can establish notability.--Unscented (talk) 13:55, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing notable about this band, fails Wikipedia:Notability (music). Only ref is in japanese, but that also looks to me like a blog. Anyway, regardless of the problem with the ref, the band is non-notable. Chamal ^talk 14:00, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails all of the criteria listed at WP:BAND Tavix (talk) 17:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above. --Bobak (talk) 19:03, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BAND Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep per obvious consensus below. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

25 ta Life

Band with no notability established. Dancarney (talk) 12:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:BAND point 5 - Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable). Several releases on several indie labels. Lugnuts (talk) 13:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: Sigh. You know you are old when the bands you listened to in college are being deleted as non notable. Please view the discography for this band, and if you get a chance, check out the documentary N.Y.H.C. (film): [10].
Keep Clearly meets WP:MUSIC through its releases on labels such as Triple Crown Records. Been hoping that someone would expand this article for a long time. Chubbles (talk) 13:48, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Chamal ^talk 14:12, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Whoa, where did this nomination come from? Nominator, please have a look at the article again--I'm about to add some titles from Google Books in a reference section, for (future) incorporation in the article. Drmies (talk) 15:03, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, just one for now--though I'm sure that ta above remarks by other editors will suffice ta let this article survive, and perhaps they'll get busy on it too. Chubbles, Lugnuts, feel the spirit move ya? Drmies (talk) 15:12, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 20:12, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of X Factor Contestants

Delete indiscriminate collection of information per WP:IINFO. Entirely trivial list, orphaned, and unsourced. Mayalld (talk) 12:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How do you come to the conclusion this is indiscriminate? The inclusion guidelines for the list has clear boundaries and at least 3rd of the entries is bluelinked (notable) with others likely to follow. The fact it's unsourced and orphaned can be addressed by editing. - Mgm|^(talk) 17:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - better a list than a category? Deb (talk) 12:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the vast majority of the names on the list are simply not notable. Listcruft, pure and simple. Mayalld (talk) 12:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As far as I can determine, this list duplicate material from the articles of the related tv shows. It doesn't even list contestants from other country editions (Denmark, Belgium, Netherlands, Australia, etc) - Mgm|^(talk) 17:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: article duplication. JamesBurns (talk) 08:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 00:26, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Land of Opportunity Forever

Either a non-notable neologism or a non-notable recently published book. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 12:37, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non notable book by Stephen Manoj Thompson with fairly trivial sources. The book author's article page is currently under review for deletion as well. Amazon shows no sales, no customer reviews and no activity. --Oliver Twisted (Talk) 12:48, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Prod has been removed from Stephen Manoj Thompson. This might be worth considering for AfD as well. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:22, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Whether the article is about the book, or the neologism, it should be deleted as the subject does not appear to have had enough coverage in reliable sources. —Snigbrook 23:42, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons above. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:22, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator. --MZMcBride (talk) 09:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriella Ambrosio

Probably notable.

Article has many problems, not least some big claims that aren't properly referenced. I wouldn't bring this to AfD if it wasn't for some concerns.

I am bothered by this, which strikes me as odd, if this person's as notable as the big claims say she is. And I'm also bothered by what appears to be COI editing, leading me to wonder if it's actually an academic, who's written some stuff but isn't really notable blowing their own trumpet. Any result is good - like I say, I think she's probably notable, but an AfD gives an opportunity for the kind of scrutiny I clearly don't have the expertise to apply. Dweller (talk) 11:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try this search instead - you were only looking for the last month. I don't read Italian so can't judge the usefulness of these ghits, but there are some (and more if you look outside news). Kate (talk) 13:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. Useful. I'll drop a line to the languages ref desk and I'll see if there's an active relevant WikiProject too. Getting a good article out of this would be a good result, if she's notable. --Dweller (talk) 13:35, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It sounds like an AfD is the wrong forum for your concerns. travb (talk) 19:08, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I think that the article as it stands is overblown and needs to be cut down to size—which is what Wikipedia editors do. And I wouldn’t be at all surprised if there were some COI going on. But the existence of the two works of fiction, together with the two (perhaps extraordinarily boring and/or nonsensensical) professional texts does seem to me to establish the subject’s notability. I see no case for deletion. Oh: I haven’t checked the isbns: I’m assuming they are valid. —Ian Spackman (talk) 20:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey..i wrote this article. and everything that i put over there is true. i added References, ISBN no', links to articles about the book, and ill add more. please dont delet it. its not easy to understand how to write in Wikipedia, im trying to read everything and to work by the rules but there are so many so its taking time. if you think that you are able to help the text please do so but dont delete the article. i have more links to support everything that was writen over there but they are in italian or hebrew so i dont know if to add it or not. please think it over. here is just one link for example: [11]ANSAmed news(Veredcb (talk) 21:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, edit appropriately, clearly notable. - Jmabel | Talk 03:09, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete for now, unless you can find references to published reviews of her novel, in any language. Only 2 US libraries have it & even for contemporary italian fiction, I'd expect a number more if it were notable. perhaps there will be some more information after the English translation is published. DGG (talk) 06:09, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KeepPer notability. A newspaper review in Israel: "First published in Italy in 2004, the book was warmly welcomed by readers and critics and was integrated into the high school curriculum in the country. It is now also being taught in universities in France and Australia. Since its publication, Ambrosio has been travelling the world as an "ambassador of peace", and she regularly meets with high school and university students to discuss the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. --Jmundo (talk) 06:24, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jmundo. If someone wrote a notable book, we obviously should cover the writer involved too. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn - notability demonstrated. Thanks everyone - a good result. --Dweller (talk) 09:10, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:34, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amunda

Self-released, non-notable albums. Zip on ghits. Without some proper sources, fails WP:BAND. Oliver Twisted (Talk) 11:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (that was quick) Article provides three independant sources [12] [13] [14]. CAAMA release is not self released. CAAMA has a history of over 20 years and has released albums by Auriel Andrew, Blek Bala Mujik, Sammy Butcher, Coloured Stone, Lajamanu Teenage Band, Herbie Laughton, Letterstick Band, Ntaria Ladies Choir, Bob Randall, Warumpi Band, Warren H Williams, Bart Willoughby, Wirrinyga Band, Frank Yamma and Isaac Yamma. Stunt is also not self released, just probably not important. Contains a notable member, Rachel Perkins. (I started this article) Duffbeerforme (talk) 11:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No dispute on CAAMA, I'm actually a fan. Self-released was the verbage used in the sources provided. I'm not sure the sources meet WP:RS, even though they are independent. They would appear to fall into the trivial category, as The Green Left online magazine doesn't appear notable and the reference labeled Vibe, is actually Vibe Alive, which is the website for a 2 day festival or gathering of some kind. Also, there are only 2 sources, as the 3rd is also The Green Left online magazine. Are there additional sources or references available? --Oliver Twisted (Talk) 12:07, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The green left sources appear to be online archives of their newspaper, not a online magazine. Does their bias make them not a reliable source? Especially considering the subject is music based. Vibe is more than just a festival. They publish a regular magazine and run The Deadlys amongst other things (About Vibe). There's not much more online but the band were at their height in the early to mid 90s, not the best for online sourcing. Trivial mention in *Dunbar-Hall, Peter; Chris Gibson. Deadly Sounds, Deadly Places. Contemporary Aboriginal Music in Australia. University of New South Wales Press. ISBN 9780868406220. but that probaly won't help much. Duffbeerforme (talk) 12:33, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another reason to keep, Nic Guggisberg was also a member of Piranpa. Frank Yamma and Piranpa won a Deadly in 1999 for their album Playing with Fire and released two albums on CAAMA. Duffbeerforme (talk) 12:20, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concede: As the editor who originated the AfD, I'm willing to concede notability with the addition of new information. Cheers. --Oliver Twisted (Talk) 12:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep achieves basic notability. Dan arndt (talk) 02:06, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 07:50, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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, hoax. Mgm|^(talk) 09:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nicktoons: Clash of the Ancients

Hoax. No sources exist. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 10:40, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G3: blatant vandalism (hoax). Graymornings_(talk) 11:20, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Graymornings --Oliver Twisted (Talk) 11:34, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unverifiable hoax. No paper sources to find either. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:49, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sorry, this is hoax. --Tamás Kádár (talk) 16:12, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoaxalicious. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 17:01, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this would probably been a good speedy candidate. --Bobak (talk) 19:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Right now, hoaxes are not included in speedy, because what looks like a hoax to some might turn out to be true if checked further. That's why such articles require further discussion. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Danny Daniel-esque hoaxing. JuJube (talk) 21:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (G3) as fucking complete horseshit. MuZemike (talk) 06:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –Juliancolton ^Happy ^Holidays 02:10, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Xavier Perrot

It is obviously wrong to have an article about a person who raced one - 1 - race. According to the article, he even "never raced in a full Formula One World Championship race". Punkmorten (talk) 10:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Despite the article not saying so, he obviously competed in many many other races. They are just not mentioned here. Give us at WP:F1 time to expand and we will do so. Perrot competed in several other notable classes, but in a lot of these stub articles, only F1 was mentioned at first. Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:19, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A 76 year old Formula racer surely has some sources hidden away that can be plumbed? Now that the article has a champion, I'm with Bretonbanquet on this one. --Oliver Twisted (Talk) 11:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Assuming that we count car racing as a sport, this guy automatically passes WP:ATHLETE; and I agree with Bretonbanquet, surely you can't get in a race like this without ever having raced before. Nyttend (talk) 14:42, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have expanded the article to include Perrot's other exploits. As a European hillclimbing champion and a winner in Formula Two, he is certainly notable enough in my view. Hopefully other editors will agree :o) Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:49, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Bretonbanquet. DH85868993 (talk) 03:32, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:34, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Train surfing

It hasn´t reliable references, it isn´t an extreme sports, it´s very dangerous Esteban (talk) 23:20, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It has two BBC articles listed, one in a Danish newspaper and one in a magazine. And that's just the links I pulled from the article. Google will no doubt show more in different countries. There clearly are reliable references contrary to what the nominator says. It probably shouldn't be described as an extreme sport, but that is something that can be solved by editing rather than deletion. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well sourced. Edit as necessary to address objections to content. Fg2 (talk) 12:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Molly McGuire. Mgm|^(talk) 08:58, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Spores

AfDs for this article:

The article is written as a fan-site and seems to be purely promotional. This could be fixed, though there's still no assertion as to notability, nor are there any sources aside from their own website and myspace. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 10:21, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Their one claim to fame was touring with the Eagles of Death Metal, which ended this way: [15]. --Oliver Twisted (Talk) 10:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not only that, but the article is blatant self-promotion. Deb (talk) 12:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Molly McGuire Duffbeerforme (talk) 15:31, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Molly McGuire or delete. --Bobak (talk) 19:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to other article or user space. Yikes. travb (talk) 20:37, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: article fails to establish notability, as per WP:BAND. JamesBurns (talk) 08:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. by User:East718 Mgm|^(talk) 10:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Soccer (the evolution style)

Ghits include a few YouTube videos by "Lil' Rosny", but I haven't seen anything else. WP:MADEUP? Mr. Vernon (talk) 08:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am very weary of Lil Rosny, L Rosny, Rony Talow. Please view: [16] for more information on this topic. Most likely continued vandalism after a Sockpuppet charge, blocking, salting ad infinitum.

Update: Page blanked during Sockpuppet notification. --Oliver Twisted (Talk) 09:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable term. --Oscarthecat (talk) 08:54, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was just trying to make this article for people! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yallayallagogo (talk • contribs) 08:49, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article already deleted, user blocked. This can be closed. --Oliver Twisted (Talk) 09:53, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Aqua Teen Hunger Force. Mgm|^(talk) 10:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obnoticus

Seems to be something from Aqua Teen Hunger Force. No need for it here. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 08:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Aqua Teen Hunger Force. No need for deletion. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 08:15, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Ryan Delaney — Peter McGinley 08:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Ryan Delaney --Oliver Twisted (Talk) 08:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 00:25, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandana S

Not appropriate per WP:NOTNEWS. Ironholds (talk) 07:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: No real difference between this story and the Baby Jessica, Jessica McClure story, apart from geography. While Wikipedia is not a news service, there are instances when instantaneous international celebrity goes beyond WP:NOTNEWS, such as Baby Jessica and Elian Gonzalez. Just a spur for discussion. --Oliver Twisted (Talk) 08:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but comparing this and Jessica McClure isn't really accurate. This one: a baby fell in a well. That one: a baby fell in a well, and the results included a film on the subject and a photograph of her being rescued winning the 1988 Pulitzer. Elian Gonzalez also raised various constitutional issues, something that, importantly, had ramifications beyond the incident itself. There is no indication this event will have any impact outside of the immediate situation (baby falls in, gets rescued); indeed, the press articles noted that this sort of thing is becoming relatively commonplace. Ironholds (talk) 08:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not necessarily disputing your argument. I was just testing the waters regarding a story about the notability of a little girl in India being stuck in a well vs. a little girl in the US being stuck in a well. I'm not going to cast a vote on this one because it's hard to judge what is notable as news in a foreign country, without living there. Is there any way to invite any editors living in India to weigh in on this? --Oliver Twisted (Talk) 08:39, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 11:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Note that article under this title arose from a cut and paste move of Vandana, which Akshaygn appears to be turning in to a disambiguation page. THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 12:01, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article about a baby that fell in a well with no significant things happening because of it. Schuym1 (talk) 16:12, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator's extended rationale and WP:ONEEVENT. Maralia (talk) 20:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 01:11, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Leveridge

Notability asserted for being the ex-girlfriend of a published author.

Delete. Privacy concerns outweigh the encyclopedic importance of covering the subject. Ryan Delaney ^talk 07:35, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The Ireland On-Line reference does not even mention this individual, and the IMDb reference only states her as a non-notable makeup artist. A quick Google search only reveals trivial sources. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 07:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the nomination really says it all here... JBsupreme (talk) 08:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. --Oliver Twisted (Talk) 10:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:01, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Like --User:OliverTwisted Tamás Kádár (talk) 16:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
commentnot that she';'s notable, but such notability as there is was asserted as being not just his girl friend, but the model for the equivalent character in his book. DGG (talk) 06:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Happy ^Holidays 02:10, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Emerald City Towers

Planned skyscrapers; falls under WP:CRYSTAL. Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:46, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: or Redirect/Merge to Trump Organization pending completion. --Oliver Twisted (Talk) 06:55, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per OliverTwisted. — Peter McGinley 08:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Delete as above. --Balloholic (talk) 13:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wrong process. Mgm|^(talk) 08:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Multilingualism language

This page is a {{softredirect}} to meta:Requests for new languages/Wiktionary multilingual. It was nominated for WP:PROD, but as the page's creator I wanted to bring it here. See Talk:Multilingualism language for why it exists. This, that and the other _[talk] 06:31, 22 December 2008 (UTC) This, that and the other _[talk] 06:31, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong XFD. Redirects are handled at our Redirects for Discussion page, not here.--Unscented (talk) 14:00, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I was using Twinkle, and it didn't let me submit to RfD. I'll resubmit there. Thanks. This, that and the other _[talk] 06:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Happy ^Holidays 02:10, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Brian Harmon

No ghits to support any of these claims. Probable hoax. Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:N. References in article do not include this individual, and a quick Google search comes up empty. Seems to be a HOAX. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 07:36, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: May not be a hoax: [17], but it is certainly poorly referenced, and doesn't seem to meet WP:BIO without additional references. Additionally, the Zoe's Kitchen citation leads to the company website, rather than a specific article. The Anniston Star Gallery shows an artist's collection, but never references Mr. Harmon, Bon ART, or anything relevant that I could see. The South Alabama U citation only points to the University homepage. Finally, the bhamwiki link for John Cassimus mentions nothing about Mr. Harmon. --Oliver Twisted (Talk) 07:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ZoomInfo is a social networking site; that info is about as reliable as Facebook. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 09:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. I was just pointing out that he apparently does work at Bon ART, and it might not qualify for a hoax, not asserting any notability of the source. --Oliver Twisted (Talk) 09:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even if these claims are all true, he's not notable. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:07, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article is a duplication of Brian Harmon, another article created by the same editor. Qqqqqq (talk) 00:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nom; article was speedied in between adding the tag and creating the deletion page // roux 06:15, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What Snow Disrupts

NN vanity-published book. roux 06:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Aitias // discussion 01:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of health topics (0-9)

Incomplete since about 2007, unwieldy, and has no real focus on health. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator comment. Instead of many pages covering health topics I would like to see only one page (List of health topics) that covers it. It would make for a more succinct page that is easier to use. Many of the links could be covered at, say List of biology topics or whatever. Some WP editors do not seem to keep lists within rational boundaries with the result that lists cove a very wide range of disparate topics. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete and create category if needed, otherwise, delete. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 23:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The redlinks might be useful in project space as a list of potential article topics, but the list isn't useful to readers. (If anything, it's a hindrance: a user who searches for a term and finds it in this list as a redlink isn't likely to be helped by the discovery that it's a "health topic".) Moreover, many of the words don't appear to be more than tangentially health-related: sextant shows up, as well as sculpture, squirrel, and skittles. Finally, it's incomplete to the point of being ridiculous - I'm sure there are actual health-related topics that don't start with H or S, but there appears to have been absolutely no effort to include them in the two years or so that this list has existed. Zetawoof_(ζ) 00:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, has no place in main space, could be moved to project space. Punkmorten (talk) 09:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment isn't this part of the Table-of-contents navigation scheme? 76.66.195.159 (talk) 10:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep and improve. If nobody is working on these at all in any subject w should reconsider the scheme, but amy view is that we should try to maintain as may organizational methods a possible., DGG (talk) 20:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep and improve. Can across this today when I was going to add info about Supracondylar fracture and found that this page and many others are missing. We do have a long way to go to make this a comprehensive medical source. Were did all this topics come from by the way?--Doc James (talk) 16:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mgm|^(talk) 05:48, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Categorize (Are we on WP:EfD? :)) This will do a lot better on that because it makes search and subcategorizing a lot easier. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 06:46, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a Category:Health. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 10:31, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A glance at a random page up for deletion shows that a majority of the topics are only tangentally related to health or not at all (Sea horse, SDS and Secondary alcohol). Categorizing them as such would result in miscategorization. Whoever wants to use it is better of searching existing categories like: Category:Diseases and disorders Category:Nutrition Category:Medical terms etc. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment how about List_of_environmental_topics_(A) and so on? --Ryan Delaney ^talk 11:01, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a bad comparison, because that is list is actually discriminate about what it includes. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:46, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. What about X?? MuZemike (talk) 13:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have put that lot up for a merge to List_of_environmental_topics. The same problem exists on those lists - the links in the lists are way outside of a decent boundary of inclusion, and the list is unwieldy. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 18:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These are navigation articles, that readers reach from the table of contents linked-to from the navigation bar and from right at the top of the main page. The navigation route is Portal:Contents → Portal:Contents/Lists of basic topics#Health and fitness → Topic outline of health → List of health topics (0-9). Please remember that we do attempt to provide readers with a way to navigate the encyclopaedia by topic. Uncle G (talk) 15:53, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am all for using topic lists for navigation within WP but it would make navigation a LOT easier if the topic list was on one page and links are made to articles that have a major focus on health. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 18:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Uncle G's logic. There's no reason we can't have both categories and lists at the same time. Umbralcorax (talk) 16:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with having lists and categories. I would like to see this topic list as one page only. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:01, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And limited to actual health topics, but I still wonder why the categories I mentioned aren't enough. They list all the relevant health topics. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There seems to be clear consensus that the notability guidelines for politicians are failed here. Also, it is evident that “significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject” within the meaning of the general notability guideline is not demonstrated here. Even those, who said the article should be kept, partly admit that there is a lack of such reliable sources. Hence, there is a consensus for deletion. — Aitias // discussion 13:47, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Scharf

Delete - I do not believe Jane Scharf is notable enough to have a wikipedia page. Further, her own activity on the page makes me think some of it is a vanity piece. The article is unsourced and original research provided by Scharf herself brings its neutrality into question. TastyCakes (talk) 18:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – At this time. Was only able to find one 3rd party – creditable and verifiable source, as shown here [18]. Good luck with her cause. ShoesssS ^Talk 19:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I found the same source as Shoessss, and based on my interpretation of the general notability guidelines, one reliable source with significant coverage can be enough to establish notability, although multiple sources are generally preferred. "The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred." It is my opinion that the exclusive coverage of this single source is reliable enough to presume that she is notable. I would keep the article, but challenge and remove all unsourceable statements. LinguistAtLarge 22:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Not criticizing here, but I believe you overlooked the last s in sources as in multiple publications and articles. But A for effort. A true inclusionist after my own heart :-). If she runs again for Mayor and wins, she is a definite shoo-in at that time. Take care. ShoesssS ^Talk 22:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Not insisting I'm right, and definitely open to discussion and correction, but this, from WP:BIO means to me that one source can be enough: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. 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." Linguist<spanstyle="color:#999;">AtLarge 22:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I hear what you are saying, and in fact the guidelines actually says, “What constitutes a "published work" is deliberately broad” so personal interpretation can be used. However, my gist is that when they say: “… 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”. However, I believe a 1500-2000 word article by itself, as the only available source, is trivial. ShoesssS ^Talk 22:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Somehow this nomination seems to have links leading to two places. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jane_Scharf and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Talk:Jane Scharf LinguistAtLarge 22:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ya it was my first AFD and I screwed it up... Sorry about that TastyCakes (talk) 01:40, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- could do with another source, but clearly indicates notability beyond the one field. -- Jubelum (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 09:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Comment - Are there other sources? TastyCakes (talk) 18:11, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Bearcat (talk) 07:04, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:POLITICIAN, candidates for election aren't presumed notable in the absence of reliable sources, and at present the only provided source is an activist group's press release on an e-mail listserv. That isn't really an indication of encyclopedic notability. Delete unless far more detailed and substantial sources can be provided. Bearcat (talk) 07:04, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mgm|^(talk) 05:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unelected candidates aren't inherently notable, and she doesn't seem to have had significant coverage outside the one source. The way I interpret WP:POLITICIAN - and I might be wrong, so feel free to correct me - is that an unsuccessful candidate has to have coverage that shows notability beyond the fact that he or she simply ran for office. The source we have a) doesn't indicate this and b) doesn't quite meet my definition of "reliable." If we could find sources that show that her homelessness protest and/or mayoral campaign received non-trivial attention by news sources (rather than the press release currently cited), she might meet the notability criteria, but I'm having a hard time finding any mentions of her on the web that aren't just offhand mentions of the fact she ran for office or local editorials written by her. Graymornings_(talk) 07:00, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless reliable sources can be added. (And fast.) Deb (talk) 12:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a coatrack/vanity article for a minor candidate who ran for mayor of Ottawa. Simply running for mayor isn't notable, anyone can do that. Winning a large number of votes, however, is notable but she failed to do so. Tavix (talk) 17:07, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move to user space, as long as creator promises to remove the article's photo. travb (talk) 20:39, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Remove the photo? What's the point? I don't know about you but deleting it from Wikipedia won't stop it haunting my dreams... TastyCakes (talk) 23:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Here's another, shorter but high quality source. ( The 1,500 - 2,000 word source pointed out by Shoessss, and Linguist is rather more substantial than what is usually considered trivial in my experience). There's this link at the top of the gnews results - titled "Jane Scharf réclame des bureaux de scrutin pour les sans-abri" - Une candidate à la mairie d'Ottawa veut forcer le bureau municipal des élections à installer des bureaux de scrutin dans les quatre plus importants refuges ... from cyberpresse.ca - Sep 6, 2006. The 404 message says it is temporarily unavailable due to changes in their archives, but should be back up in a month. (There are 3 other links from them with the same problem.) There's this 2003 story from the Centretown News [19]. Finally, These interviews by Denis Rancourt (recent AfD survivor) might qualify.John Z (talk) 06:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as the article states, she is mentioned frequently enough, sometimes in articles largely focused on her activities, in the Ottawa XPress , as 21 hits for her on their site indicate.John Z (talk) 09:42, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:22, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phillip DeFranco

Non notable YouTube "celebrity". TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 17:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phillip DeFranco is a very notable Youtube Celebrity he is in the all time most subscribed with 290,000 subscribers. He works very close with Youtube and its creators. He is employed by Youtube to make videos, this is the reason i think this page is within the lines of Wikipedia. I have included a link to his Youtube site.http://www.youtube.com/user/sxephil Philip DeFrancoKyle1278 (talk) 17:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TwentiethApril1986, can you be more specific as to why he is not notable in your assessment? There are multiple references in the article that would need to be debunked and some sort of determination needs to be made as to when someone is actually a YouTube celebrity. - Mgm|^(talk) 18:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I am on the fence about this one, the articles are not "about him" in particular, they are about the show that he is on, does that qualify as "significant coverage", I don't know, however the tone of the article needs some work.--kelapstick (talk) 18:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Philip DeFranco Posts videos Monday-Friday and each video gets around 300,000-400,000 in a day. he is also affiliated with other big Youtube Celebrities such as SMP Films Corey Williams, Charles Trippy, Clip Critics and many others, and he has appeared in many of there videos, and he is currently dating Lindsy who is also a partner with Youtube.Kyle1278 (talk) 02:45, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Youtube describes Philip DeFranco as this; The “Philip DeFranco Show” is the most viewed off the cuff news show on YouTube. The Monday to Friday show attracting the attention of CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times, and the eyes and ears of the internet, has become one of the most popular and trafficked shows on the web. Philip DeFranco has no intention of slowing down. TechCrunch added,” the kid has talent”.Kyle1278 (talk) 00:08, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If he has attracted the attention of CNN, MSNBC and the NYT than there should be no problem establishing notability. Other than YouTube as a saying he has attracted their attention (which can not be considered independent, as YouTube writing about someone who is employed by them). Can you find these articles/Sources?--kelapstick (talk) 00:42, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Links- here are some links that have Philip Defranco on the news and other:
- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y96bUNBD1fI
- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpwq-mDalcw
- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lF36PEFANok
  - CommentThe first link is about Google and Viacom, and they take one of Phillip's videos and play some commentary about it, I would say that would not qualify as him being the subject. The second link is a YouTube party, where he is shown which would not be considered independent. And the third appears to be him interviewing someone. I would think that YouTube should not be used as a source to establish notability for people on YouTube. I still think that we should keep the article, but those are not sources that can be used to establish notability.--kelapstick (talk) 17:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the Philip DeFranco page, the headline says his name is Phillip DeFranco, when it's actually spelt Philip DeFranco, with one l. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enflamedsilhouette (talk • contribs) 21:49, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if the show is notable, then we should have an article about that. Unless there is substantial third-party coverage of him as a person (rather than of the show) then delete this and make an article about the show. Cynical (talk) 22:40, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If you read the Wikipedia criteria for a entertainer having a bio page it states thus: "Actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and television personalities: Has a large fan base or a significant 'cult' following." This is clearly applicable to Philip DeFranco (aka sxephil) as he has about 300,000 subscribers on youtube, so I don't think this needs to be discussed further.Ezzi386 (talk) 05:47, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mgm|^(talk) 05:46, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-- Per notability: article by Los Angeles Times, "Philip “sXePhil” DeFranco, whose raunchy pop culture monologues have made him one of the site’s most recognized faces". Another article by The Washington Post: "SXePhil is the alias of 21-year-old University of South Florida student and Web heartthrob Philip DeFranco, whose videos have been viewed millions of times." Plus all the references included already in the article.--Jmundo (talk) 07:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Tired of the YouTube "celebrity". Not sure how you can be a celebrity in a world that insular. --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 06:48, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The internet, and hence Youtube (the internet most popular video sharing site), is not insular. We all agree that he gets about 300,000 hits on each of his videos on average. This fits with Wikipedia's own criterion for actors, comedians, opinion makers having a bio page, namely: "Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following." I don't understand why this discussion is still going on...Ezzi386 (talk) 18:39, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete no reliable sources establishing notability.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bali ultimate (talk • contribs) 06:36, 25 December 2008

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 13:27, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lupin the 3rd (Epoch)

All the information on the page is already covered by List of Lupin III video games as it is just a listing of info. The page has been around for a while with no serious updates. じんない 20:58, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. じんない 01:56, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Lupin III video games. I don't think the list style suits the video game article, I'd like to replace the "main" page with a non-list format once this AfD closes. Dandy Sephy (talk) 16:44, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Lupin III video games, due to lack of reliable sources. Marasmusine (talk) 20:09, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Nothing that is not mentioned in either the list or main articles. I don't know if a redirect would make sense as there is a negligible edit history as well as a non-plausible search term. MuZemike (talk) 20:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: old, obscure video game, the article isn't likely to develop any further. I'm opposed to making it a redirect as it's a non-plausible search term.--Piccolo Modificatore Laborioso (talk) 00:40, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think this is more of a matter of cleanup, and I don't think that's grounds for deletion. Several other games from the series have good articles, with a little effort I think this article could be of the same caliber. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 03:53, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mgm|^(talk) 05:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I can't agree with Amwestover at all. The other games (or at least some of them) have much more developed pages and are possibly more notable. It's not a cleanup issue because there is nothing to clean up Dandy Sephy (talk) 08:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as redundant. -- Goodraise (talk) 16:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as redundant. --Tamás Kádár (talk) 16:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Redundant. Chasingsol (talk) 16:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Redundant. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 20:14, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Photo Incentive

Previously speedied for lack of indicia of notability. Still not seeing it. bd2412 T 19:31, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment "Photo Incentive was featured in The Skateboard Magazine" seems to be a suggestion of notability. But without a precise citation (issue number, date of publication, preferably page number also) this is difficult to verify. The article is full of weasel words ("has been compared to", "taken to a new level", etc.), but this could be fixed through editing. However, to do this, we need reliable sources. Which is what makes it critical to get more info on this magazine feature... JulesH (talk) 23:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with, or move, to Tim Pool per WP:MUSIC. Bearian (talk) 17:44, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: article fails to establish notability, per WP:MUSIC. JamesBurns (talk) 23:21, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 04:57, 17 December 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) 00:19, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, StarM 05:33, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete still very much not notable. JBsupreme (talk) 08:08, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing to show that WP:MUSIC is met. Nuttah (talk) 12:31, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Happy ^Holidays 02:10, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Makram Ghoussoub

There doesn't seem to be any listed sources that would establish notability as listed in WP:BIO. A google web search revealed nothing. Without reliable 3rd party sources, I'm not sure this article should be included. Digital Mischief 11:01, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It appears an IP (86.76.190.93) completely blanked the page shortly after the AfD nomination. Luinfana (talk) 16:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Notability not shown per WP:BIO. Schuym1 (talk) 17:44, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 05:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 05:21, 17 December 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) 00:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, StarM 05:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--I can't find anything either, neither with his name nor with the book of poetry: not on Google, and not in the Library of Congress. Strange, really. Drmies (talk) 05:48, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - very doubtful. Deb (talk) 12:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Couldn't find anything that would show notability. Chasingsol (talk) 16:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to editors talk page Doesn't seem notable, but then again, none of us speak Lebanese, and none of us have ever been to Lebanon, this guy could be their country's Stephen King for all we know--to be on the safe side, userfy the article. I guess this article was deleted on the French encyclopedia too:
13 décembre 2008 à 15:10 Sebleouf (Discuter | Contributions) a effacé « Makram Ghoussoub » ‎ (Critères d'admissibilité non atteints)[20] travb (talk) 20:42, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 20:16, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cory Boyas

Contested prod. Article on a director, choreographer and teacher that offers no reliable sources. A search offers none either therefore the subject fails WP:BIO and associated guidelines. Nuttah (talk) 18:44, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – sorry to say at this time Mr. Boyas does not meet the notability guidelines established for inclusion on Wikipedia. No hits at all on Google News, as shown here [21], where I would expect to find at least one review. On a general Google search, I was only able to find MySpace – Facebook – Wikipedia and wiki mirror sites that mention Mr. Boyas. As we cannot verify any claim, through an independent – 3rd party – creditable and verifiable source, our guidelines stipulate deletion at this time. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 19:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep –I completely disagree. Mr. Boyas is a well-respected member of the theater and dance communities. As is often the case in live performances, much of the information is never shared in the media, as it is often found not as "newsworthy" as celebrity gossip or other such nonsense. Mr. Boyas is listed on the Internet Broadway Database and I personally can verify he taught at Broadway Dance Center and Steps on Broadway. I am a NYC dancer and have had the privilege and honor to be directed and choreographed by Mr. Boyas in a summer stock production of "Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat," and worked on a separate cabaret production with him and Gregory HInes. I urge you not to be so hasty in your decision making process. It may take more work to research an actor/director/choreographer of the theater, but stage performers are no less important than those of the silver screen or on television, although their exposure is not as great. Wikipedia is a wonderful outlet to recognize these individuals for their accomplishments so that their voices may finally be heard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.91.160.165 (talk) 13:52, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment - Wikipedia’s formation and being was not founded to recognize individuals for their individual perceived accomplishments, MySpace and FaceBook have that area covered, but rather an outlet for information that has been deemed notable through independent – 3rd party – creditable and verifiable sources. This is not a reflection on Mr. Boyas dedication or talent within his given field, but rather an assertion that he has not gained the notability required for inclusion at this time. Hopefully I will read about Mr. Boyas here on Wikipedia one day. But first I need to read about him in 3rd party – independent – creditable and verifiable sources. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 15:55, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ~~Keep~~– I understand ShoesssS' frustration of not being able to verify each stage performance, but the fact of the matter is that until very recently, stage productions and their cast lists often died with the productions themselves. This should seriously be considered within Wikipedia's deletion policy, as there are many wonderful and notable stage actors, directors, and choreographers who for whatever reason did not enjoy the commercial success of film and television actors. Film and Television are much easier to verify, as their performances have been captured permanently, which is strictly forbidden by stage actors' unions such as Actors' Equity Association. It would be a pity to turn a blind eye to such an important segment of the performing arts community. The Internet Broadway Database has made great strides in bridging this gap, but even they must rely on contributions of old souvenir programs to add names. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.91.160.165 (talk) 22:18, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to misunderstand. Wikipedia's core policies, WP:V and WP:NOR, insist that anything within the encyclopaedia MUST be verifiable from other independent reliable sources. A plea of 'these types of sources do not exist' is counter productive to a keep opinion. Additionally, you may only register a definitive opinion once in a debate. Nuttah (talk) 22:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think that due diligence cannot be performed online for many live theater productions, and there must be an alternative for them to submit their sources for inclusion into Wikipedia. Is there a fax number where stage actors can submit programs, photos, and such? Even if you visit any performing arts center, you typically only see the name of the production, unless a "celebrity" is headlining the performance. I find the notability policy very one-sided and have several articles on both myself and Mr. Boyas which are not available online. Where would one submit these so that stage actors can be noted alongside their film and television counterparts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.91.160.165 (talk) 13:13, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – see discussion page Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Cory Boyas for reply and answer to your questions. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 14:24, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, StarM 05:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--Strange that there are no references available if subject directed and choreographed so many shows (and I don't mean there are no playbills). I agree with nominator: lack of sources (and I searched also, without finding anything) lead to lack of notability. Drmies (talk) 05:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator severely lacking in the non-trivial third party coverage department. JBsupreme (talk) 08:10, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Unfortunately, stage plays are very underrepresented on the internet, but that doesn't mean they're unverifiable. Someone should attempt a search for paper sources before a final decision is made. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but "Cory Boyas" has no hits on the New York Times site, and they review an awful lot of plays and other stage productions. Mind you, the top four on his first list of highlights are to happen in 2009 (begs the question of whether they should be on the list...), and a lot of them are small productions, I guess, and so it may well be that it's not just underrepresentation (because I am really not so sure that stage productions are still underrepresented in terms of meaningful, notable references) but also the level at which these productions take place. Also, isn't notability here an issue also, besides verifiability? Drmies (talk) 14:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is what I have been trying to explain. That is the crux of the argument at this time, not the variability that Mr. Boyas is a dancer/choreographer but is he notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. As he pointed out in his discussion, “Even if you visit any performing arts center, you typically only see the name of the production, unless a "celebrity" is headlining the performance”. That goes to my argument that though there are typically many individuals that take part in a performance, only the “Celebrity” is mentioned because they are considered Notable. Likewise, concerning the editors and writers working for a newspaper. We have many articles here on Wikipedia, dealing with newspapers such as the New York Times. However, we do not have articles on a vast majority of the editors and writers who work for the New York Times because they have not generated Significant coverage as to their individual accomplishments. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 15:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I couldn't find any verifiable sources to show notability. I do not question that he does what the article says he does, but one would expect that a notable director/choreographer would have some sources. Chasingsol (talk) 16:36, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –Juliancolton ^Happy ^Holidays 02:09, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seth Caplan

Autobiographical (article creator is User:Sethcaplan); indie film maker with a few films to his credits. He has won an award (albeit third place in a contest for college filmmakers), but still doesn't seem to meet WP:CREATIVE. Mr. Vernon (talk) 05:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, or as a second choice userfy. The subject was nominated for an Independent Spirit Award which should count for something toward notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep marginally notable (the award and nom. help [22]). JJL (talk) 05:27, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Caplan also produced Flatland: The Movie, an animated film featuring the voice talents of Martin Sheen, Kristen Bell and Tony Hale. In Search of a Midnight Kiss, which was produced by Caplan, won the Maverick Award for Best Editing for a Feature Narrative at WFF 2007. [23], MSNBC article on Flatland [24],
Keep--Notability: New York times article about one of his movie. An exclusive interview with Caplan by Indiepixfilms.com. Another movie he produced, Flatland has a book as a companion. --Jmundo (talk) 06:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted with a side-order of WP:SNOW. -- The Anome (talk) 06:34, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robertitulous Scottilcai "Walli" Wilsonumous

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Robertitulous Scottilcai "Walli" Wilsonumous

Appears to be a hoax. Oliver Twisted (Talk) 05:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Obvious hoax. Jfire (talk) 05:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 International finance . MBisanz ^talk 00:19, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Global Economy

Irrecoverable POV essay on dodgy neologism. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 04:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- this topic needs to be covered, but the current article is so awful I think we're better off tearing it down and starting over. Reyk _YO! 05:49, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect While the text itself should be deleted, the name itself is extremely common: searching "global economy" on Google yields over eleven million hits. Not sure where it should go (perhaps Globalization or International trade?), but either one (and perhaps others that I'm not thinking of right now) would be a very useful redirect. Nyttend (talk) 14:38, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a major limitation of the effectiveness of the use of Google searching to determine the notability of *terms* themselves. That these two words are used 11 million times on google does not mean that they together *as a term* are notable. For example search for "And she"; this gives 120M ghits, and "The way" gives over 470M; but I doubt you would argue that we should have an And she or The way article. More closely related, "global and" gives over 6M ghits, "the global" gives nearly 94M. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 19:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

International finance might be another possible target. Reyk _YO! 19:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Beyond salvaging. Carl.bunderson (talk) 20:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted as I saw no assertion of meeting WP:BIO in the article and in any event it was a copyvio. Dloh cierekim 07:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David blackmon

Chef who does not appear to meet WP:BIO; no published cookbook, TV show, etc. Article may also be autobiographical; article author is User:Blackscuba and the article claims Blackmon is a SCUBA diver. Mr. Vernon (talk) 04:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I was just about to tag it with db-copyvio of [25] --Jamoche (talk) 05:04, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also the same author has created David Blackmon with identical content. --Jamoche (talk) 05:04, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Portions of the article are copyright violation. I have added a Speedy Deletion to the article. ttonyb1 (talk) 05:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 00:18, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Erin Hilgartner

Subject does not appear to meet the notability requirements for actors as laid out in WP:ENTERTAINER; according to the article and the provided imdb.com entry the subject has only had two roles and both appear to be minor. The references provided with the article don't seem to indicate otherwise. Rnb (talk) 04:48, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Kit Kittredge: An American Girl and 30 Rock, while minor roles, indicate notability. Also, child actors should be given slightly more leeway in regards to notability, in terms of future potential. Wikipedia aims to be kid-friendly. This article is part of a series of articles being created with actors from Kit. I'd ask for some wiggle room on this one. --Oliver Twisted (Talk) 04:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response: I'm certainly not against being flexible about the notability requirements; I think if even one of her two roles was significant, that would be good enough to convince me. I'm just not sure that two minor roles is significant enough to merit its own entry. I'm curious to hear what others think. Rnb (talk) 04:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm all for being kid-friendly, but these seem to be minor roles. We have notability standards for a reason; this doesn't even come close to meeting any of the WP:ENTERTAINER standards. Put it another way: should every child actor with two relatively minor roles be allowed a Wikipedia page? --Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not. Eternal battle between inclusionism and deletionism played out again for our reading pleasure. I stand by my Keep vote on this one, but don't disagree with your argument. Best regards. --Oliver Twisted (Talk) 06:38, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The single episode TV role appears to be minor and the role in the film is not mentioned in the cast section on the official website also suggesting the role is minor. (I've created and maintained several articles on kids so I certainly support a certain leeway, just not in this case I'm afraid). - Mgm|^(talk) 10:03, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Notability is not inherited through playing minor roles in other shows. I could not find any reliable sources that indicate why she might be notable. MuZemike (talk) 13:24, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete like: - Mgm|^(talk) --Tamás Kádár (talk) 16:15, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:05, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:05, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 01:14, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Council of Armed Rabbis

Six ghits, no evidence that this is a PAC - looked failed on Open Secrets [26]; possible hoax. Mr. Vernon (talk) 04:35, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I think. I mean, it says it's registered and google seems to also say that. Well, I mean, it'd be nice if it could be kept. Ya know? Bstone (talk) 04:39, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bstone, you wrote the article. Can you point out where Google says it is registered? --Mr. Vernon (talk) 04:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My car is officially registered, but it's not notable. Sorry I seem to be in kind of a snappy mood today.Redddogg (talk) 05:00, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My cat is registered. Is he notable? This might merit mention in the Grayson article but that's it. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I looked on the Federal Elections Commission web site and couldn't find evidence that this is a registered political action committee as the article claims. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:24, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - An organization is considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources; the only coverage I can find is in the Wikipedia article itself, in a mirror of our Richard Grayson article, a blogspot post and a Yahoo groups message. The only 'reliable source' I have been able to uncover is in a book written by Grayson. ~ TheIntersect 05:33, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to Richard Grayson. Redirects are cheap. --dab (𒁳) 09:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the redirect works for me. It could also go to Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, which may be more appropriate :-) --Mr. Vernon (talk) 09:40, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is largely irrelevant. Quantumobserver (talk) 17:42, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Procol Harum. MBisanz ^talk 00:17, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Royer

Part of a notable band but does not pass WP:MUSIC alone. HeureusementIci (talk) 04:15, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer it it this article was NOT deleted. I've stubbed articles for all of the Procol Harum members, including Ray Royer. It's my intention to go back and start to flesh them all out. I think we should keep this for two reasons:

1. He was a member of the band when they recorded A Whiter Shade of Pale ("record certified gold or higher in at least one country"). While he did record the song, but the cut they eventually released didn't include him. He is featured on the 'B' side.

2. Consistency - It's going to look odd that all members of Procol Harum, except Ray have an article related to them.

Stormcloud (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 09:40, 22 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Delete WP:MUSIC states "Note that members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases." Royer has not demonstrated such notability - at least according to the article. Consistenc is irrelevant in this instance. Dancarney (talk) 12:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for the reasons given above. Consistency is irrelevant. Being a member while an important album is recorded is not notability independent of the band. Duffbeerforme (talk) 13:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, subject has no notability beyond his participation in the band. Nuttah (talk) 14:10, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No objection to redirecting instead. HeureusementIci (talk) 00:47, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Object OK, I expect I'll loose the vote but I'm going to give this a try ;-). WP:MUSIC says "A musician .. is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:" which include (from section 3)"Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country". Since the "A Whiter Shade of Pale" has done this I think he should be included. Now I come to check my facts^[1] I see that he is on both the issued version of AWSOP and the 'B' side (Line Street Blues). He is also notable for his work in the bank Freedom (somebody remove the link I put in); he appears on the soundtrack for the 1969 Italian movie "Nerosubianco", and according to the imbd^[2] is a member of the cast. Before we delete or redirect (or even keep?) this article could somebody suggest a way of verifying how noteworthy his work in "Freedom" and "Nerosubianco" are. Stormcloud (talk) 14:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I believe that your objection falls under the scope of User:Dancarney's note on individual members of notable bands, above. Do you disagree, and if so, why? HeureusementIci (talk) 17:34, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Procol Harum - Clase Johansen ISBN 0-946719-28-4
^ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0063340/

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:17, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finite and Infinite Games

Looks to me to violate WP:BK. In particular, the only reviews I see for this book are by people who are caught up in the guru-qualities of the author who is notable as an academic researcher and teacher but not necessarily as a spiritual leader (this is not a notable text book, for example). In any case, this particular book hasn't seemed to really register as anything in the history of ideas, nor has it spawned any notable movements, won any notable awards from groups that aren't simply front-organizations for the lazy spiritualism that the author espouses. It looks to me like the entire thing is one big soapbox. Let it get famous outside the New Age community and make enough of an impact so that there are independent, outside reviews that can explain the importance (or lack thereof) of this book in the grand scheme of similar ideas/publications. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is a coatrack for book's contents, as are many others. The notability of the book is not established by secondary sources. Having said that, I don't think that WP should discriminate against authors based on their spiritual beliefs. Redddogg (talk) 05:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: The book has been reviewed by the New York Times ([27]), though the review is negative, not to mention extremely catty. There are a few other reviews in major outlets: The Independent ([28]) for instance, though that review requires $$$ to view and so I haven't read it in its entirety. Anyhow, there appears to be something there in terms of secondary-source coverage - enough for a weak keep, but not enough for a strong keep. MastCell ^Talk 06:10, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not convinced of the notability of the book, and notability is not inherited from the author. rootology (C)(T) 19:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The books itself does not seem to meet notability criteria, though the author probably does. Perhaps some of the content can be merged into James P. Carse before deletion. Deli nk (talk) 20:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are a good number of mainstream reviews, - the NYT, the Independent, per above, and The Advocate (Baton Rouge) [29]. (16 gnews hits), 322 gbooks hits (and 175 gscholar hits attesting to influence in business, philosophy and the humanities. See e.g. [30], [31], [32] , or this address -Mathematics as Metaphor, to the International Congress of Mathematicians by the eminent Yuri Manin using Carse's book's concept of "metaphor." These seem to support keeping under WP:BOOK.John Z (talk) 05:20, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 07:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge or rewrite as a stub. The NYTimes review, which is fully readable, makes me believe that the current content is not written from the independent sources, and hence the current content should go. The number of reviews for a philosophy text indicates to me that we should have some coverage. If anyone wants to pay to read the other reviews and write a real article that would be great. But the NYTimes review all by itself would support a paragraph of content, either as a stub or in the author's article. GRBerry 14:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Searching, I think the book is more notable than the author. Having searched, I was only able to add one sentence to the author's biography from a clearly independent source - so that article is now two sentences long. I doubt that the author's article would survive AFD, so can't see merging as a good idea. GRBerry 17:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that initially too, but there are a number of paper-source biographies about the author and I think, per WP:PROF, he maintains his notability. The NYU faculty directory, for example, contains an interesting biography of him. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So use it please. The article on him is somewhere between a sub-stub and a stub, with a book list thrown on the end. GRBerry 17:42, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The reviews linked above show that this clearly gets through WP:BK. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:58, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per previous keeps; those weren't even exhaustive searches. And I note that the NYT review's criticism is not at all up to the quality I expect of a real philosopher, which makes me wonder. --Gwern (contribs) 03:15 26 December 2008 (GMT)
Keep per the sources provided above. John254 17:24, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 00:15, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Woodward effect

Article violates WP:FRINGE, WP:NOR, WP:RS, WP:SOAP, among others. Non-notable CUSF academic proponent: no notice of the idea outside the cadre of true-believers desperately seeking attention on Wikipedia. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Keep If the effect was really as cool as the article says it would have been written up by the media. I see that a couple of outlets have noticed, better err on the side of caution and keep to see if it takes off. (pun intended :-) )Redddogg (talk) 03:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a promotional article. WillOakland (talk) 04:00, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~, Keep: because this is a good article. --Tamás Kádár (talk) 15:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: See four new external links to reputable sources. Whether the effect is real or not, it certainly seems to be getting very serious attention. Perhaps someone who knows more about physics than me (almost anyone) will edit the article to provide more balance - but it does seem worth retention. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:04, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I added a few more links. My understanding, and I probably have this totally garbled, is that there are two parts to the subject. The first is the concept that a sub-atomic particle's mass may not be fixed, but may fluctuate around an average, exchanging mass with the surrounding medium. This seems to get guarded acceptance - mathematically possible, apparently not inconsistent with accepted physics. The second is that this effect could be exploited to somehow ratchet a vehicle through space, which gets a lot more skepticism, but which NASA etc. consider worth at least exploring, even if it is a very long shot. Whether either is true is not really the point. Is the topic notable? I think it is, given the references. I also think the view that the Earth is flat is notable, although I am skeptical about the accuracy of this view. Is it a fringe theory? I don't think so. The scientific community seems to be saying "possible, but unlikely" rather than "ridiculous". Clearly, the article should be edited to reflect this general skepticism. It needs an expert. Aymatth2 (talk) 23:38, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. rootology (C)(T) 19:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update to keep per the new sources added for plain raw notability, and to allow science experts to sort out the article. Resend to AFD in 1-2 months if it's not fixed and properly sourced to be compliant with WP:FRINGE and our standards for accuracy. I'll AFD it then again myself. If I forget to review it, I ask anyone to remind me on my talk page in public of my asking for this in about 60-65 days of this AFD closing. It squeaks over the notability line, just barely, at a glance, but needs a firmer review by people that understand the material to see if that's not just an illusion. Adding a lot more external news coverage would certainly help with that to cement it. rootology (C)(T) 22:07, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above, per WP:FRINGE, etc... Change to no opinion. Eusebeus (talk) 20:54, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ Keep (scratches head) difficult one this, as we have an unproven theory which is difficult to understand for the average reader, which is (sort of) notable. I wonder that having an article on its own reifies the subject a bit too much (and is hence a tad misleading) and whether a merge to a parent article of some sort is a prudent option so it can be explained in context. Improved to the point it can stand on its own. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:24, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fringy, Original research. NonvocalScream (talk) 05:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep if totally rewritten for NPOV, at Rootology suggests--at the moment its very like an advertisement, defending not explaining the theory. I do not really see what this could be merged to. Almost all the sources cited, including those recently added, are quite problematic as very minor conference papers. But other people have worked on the question, so it should get an article.DGG (talk) 05:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Per DGG. Let's see if someone gets curious, reads about this, and trims it down and summarizes it neutrally over the next month. I don't feel comfortable forcing a physics expert to rewrite this, but it seems notable and should get a chance. It is, as Casliber, a bit difficult to make a decision, but bad content shouldn't be merged into good content. II | (t - c) 07:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 07:58, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this pile of promotional cruft has been around for over two years. Alternative might be a complete rewrite - best done from scratch if notable. Vsmith (talk) 13:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable, and AfD is not cleanup. --Itub (talk) 16:54, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE Just did a rewrite - see current version of the article. I suspect that my explanation will cause horror and despair in the physics departments. After doing the rewrite my conclusion is that a) the effect is almost certainly non-existent and b) the article is entirely notable. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:23, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep - Notable crack pottery. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 00:16, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barocco sempre giovane

Unable to find anything that appeared to approach "significant" coverage from any independent source. While I cannot read Czech, it's pretty easy to see that the first many pages of Google hits are concert listings, etc., without any editorial content.

Happy to withdraw if sources can be demonstrated, but as it is, this appears to be an advert for a non-notable music group. Bongo matic 03:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: not significantly notable, as per WP:BAND. JamesBurns (talk) 07:56, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Young ensemble, no significant recordings and concert tours. On the other hand, they cooperate with many notable and important interprets from Czech Republic. But the ensemble is not notable at the moment. I suggest to create articles for more established interprets of older music from Czech Republic, as Musica Florea or Musica Bohemica. --Vejvančický (talk) 15:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 07:56, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 07:56, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:13, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Keller (televangelist)

This guy is not notable enough or disconnected enough from his "ministry" to deserve a separate article. Everything that makes him notable is intertwined with his website and TV show Live Prayer, so the content here should be merged into that article. Chimro (talk) 03:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't like this guy much either, and the article does need some work. However, he was the subject of an AP article so notable by WP standards, as they are usually applied. Redddogg (talk) 04:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Don't put words in my mouth, I never said I don't like him. In any case, I would like to think that I am editing in a professional manner and not letting my personal convictions prevent me from being objective. That being said, while the subject is notable (as I've mentioned already), there is no need for two separate articles on what is effectively the same subject. Bill Keller is the only noteworthy person at Live Prayer and he is only notable due to Live Prayer, in essence he is Live Prayer. For this reason, this article should be merged into 'Live Prayer'. --Chimro (talk) 04:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I did check out the other article. If they are going to be merged then the resulting article should be on him, I think so anyway. Redddogg (talk) 04:31, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Live Prayer is notable enough to stand on itself. From what I've come across Keller is also notable enough to warrant his own article. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 03:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 07:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 07:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, Notable (though not very) in the wiki sense - has RS. Springnuts (talk) 08:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Live Prayer. --Chimro (talk) 02:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. This will just make things easier and reduce redundancy. It's better to have one good article than two redudnant articles. --RucasHost (talk) 05:01, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Aitias // discussion 17:21, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Molesworth Street

Non-notable, uninteresting street named after an English lad. Thanks Balloholic (talk) 02:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your subjective estimation of how interesting the subject is, is irrelevant. Our criterion here at Wikipedia is notability, which is not subective. Who the street is named after is irrelevant to Wikipedia:Deletion policy, too. This street is documented on pages 530–531 of ISBN 9780300109238, which not only tells who the street is named after, it tells us all sorts of other information, such as the Act of Parliament that allowed him to build here and what numbers 7–9 and 10–11 on this street are (and who built them). ISBN 9780902561854 page 493 tells us what numbers 38–44 used to be, and now are, and when the first stone was laid. John Thomas Gilbert's A history of the city of Dublin (McGlashan and Gill, 1859) devotes an astonishing 25 pages (pp. 250–275) to this street. And that's where I stopped looking, even though there were further things to look at. Unlike Thomas Street (Dublin) (AfD discussion), this is not on the brink of satisfying the PNC. It satisfies the PNC with ease. Keep. Uncle G (talk) 06:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Then get these sources into the article. Arguing is counterproductive. Add, add, add! As it stands the couple of links (note: not even inline citations) that are there are based upon its architecture yet not enough is said of note, just some trivial and speculative lines of little worth to anyone who doesn't live or work here. It should be deleted within the time period unless improved significantly beyond what it is now. Does it have a historic importance or was it the first to do anything or the longest street in Ireland or what? If so put it in. --Balloholic (talk) 16:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - What is counterproductive is your nominating articles without looking for sources beforehand. And neither deletion policy nor editing policy require that this article be improved according to some deadline of your personal invention. AFD is not a hammer, and the other, volunteer, editors here are not your personal writing services. Uncle G (talk) 21:19, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I know I'm a bit demanding but I love you all really. I'm only trying to improve the project and I'm taking no prisoners for the sake of some instant results. These streets have been lying idle for years. What I can't understand is why, when there are just one or two lines of no real notability, they can't be deleted and recreated again when someone has something interesting to say about them. They have no purpose right now. Thank you all for being such good little volunteers. --Balloholic (talk) 21:54, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Because Wikipedia doesn't work like that, and has never worked like that. Per Wikipedia:Editing policy, we are content to allow articles to be imperfect as they develop. And that development can take years, and in many cases has. Volunteers generally don't write articles overnight. We have many articles that took years to get to where they are now. North Asia, an entire geographic region of the planet, took almost five years to progress beyond a 2 sentence stub. We don't delete stubs that have potential for expansion, given the existence of sources from which they can be expanded. And we don't require expansion to be immediate.
        And a subject that has been documented in depth in multiple independent reliable published works is notable, by definition. Once again, your subjective estimations have no bearing at all on whether something is notable. Notability is not subjective, and by making subjective estimations of how personally important you think something to be, you are not gauging notability, you are not making an argument that holds water at AFD, and you are not helping Wikipedia. Uncle G (talk) 15:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - if this is kept, it will need disambiguating. Molesworth Street, Wellington is at least as notable, if not far more so. Grutness...wha? 01:18, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd say this looks like a weak keep and move to Molesworth Street (Dublin). Grutness...wha? 22:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is a reasonably interesting street. If the criteria for deleting Dublin streets is because they are called after "english lads", then that accounts for quite alot of them. Snappy (talk) 05:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Dear Snappy. Yes - but not the most notable ones like O'Connell Street, named after a decent Irish lad. However that is the only bit where you make sense. You lose me at the other bit of your opinion. If we keep every street because it is "reasonably interesting" we will have an atlas. I suggest you take your agenda to Wikiatlas or some such thing if one exists. That would be more suited to your liking I think. Lots of love to you. --Balloholic (talk) 15:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wikipedia policy has little or no connection to the nationality of the person a street is named after, surely? Autarch (talk) 14:17, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Minimal indeed. However in the cicumstances this is Dublin and Ireland and that is England. If a street has no other notablitiy other than being named after a fellow from a different country (I'm sure there are many examples) then it shouldn't be on an encyclopedia. --Balloholic (talk) 14:26, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Promoting nationalism of any kind isn't Wikipedia policy, as far as I know. Maybe if you set up your own fork of wikipedia you could run things that way. Autarch (talk) 16:09, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        But a street simply isn't notable only for being named after someone from the same country never mind a different one. --Balloholic (talk) 22:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 07:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 07:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sufficiently notable and sufficient sources found. DGG (talk) 12:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources show it is notable. RMHED (talk) 21:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How? - Some government offices, such as the Passport office and the Government Publications Sales Office are also found on this street. At that rate the most of the city streets would have an article. --Balloholic (talk) 21:58, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Uncle G. Sources indicating notability exist. Edward321 (talk) 01:26, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep just added perhaps the most important feature of the street, that Leinster House the seat of both house of the Oireachtas, Irish houses of parliament, is at the end of the street and is the frequent end point of protest demonstartions against government policy. Anyone got a photo of a demo? ww2censor (talk) 06:49, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. Clearly none exist. Which leads me to suspect an untruth. And as for Leinster House - it's in Kildare Street. We can't keep streets just because a building with some notability happens to be nearby - "ah sure it's only around the corner". Nonsense. We'll have to delete Kildare Street so and that's much more worthy of being kept.

Sources exist. Sources exist relating to just about every street and avenue in the world. They can't all be notable just because a Spanish Prime Minister picked his nose there or a Danish President choked to death on her pizza. --Balloholic (talk) 13:56, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of protests in Molesworth Street: 2003 Labour Youth, Farmers Protest 2008 - Masonic Hall visible in background. On a more philosophical note, absense of a photo doesn't constitute disproof - few of us would have photos of our great-grandparents, for example. Finally, your mention of untruth seems to be sailing away from WP:AGF Autarch (talk) 14:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I politely suspected an untruth and I cannot but have the same opinion now. We cannot be certain of any photo uploaded to Flickr. It is easy for someone to say that a photo was taken at a government protest but it could just as easily have been taken at a typical Saturday country mart in Roscommon. --Balloholic (talk) 14:42, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not unless the Masonic Hall from Molesworth Street has been transported to Roscommon! Another photo of the other protest also shows the Hall on the right The last photo was taken facing directly away from Leinster House. Given that the Masonic hall appears in photos of at least two protests, it seems sensible to assume both were taken at the same location. Said building also appears in the photo on this page. Autarch (talk) 14:59, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstood my point and took it rather too literally. It is obvious this is not Roscommon but it could easily be another part of Dublin or even Limerick/Galway/Cork/somewhere in Lithuania or Liechtenstein. It can appear in as many photos as possible but that doesn't prove it is in a particular place. There is also the possibility that buildings can look the same. It is very easy to make a mistake. It could be a film set. It could be photoshopped. The possibilities are too many to detail. --Balloholic (talk) 15:23, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does that apply to, say, books too? They can be mistaken or faked too - indeed any source can be faked, whether written, visual or audio. Autarch (talk) 16:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Clearly Balloholic does not understand that while Leinster House is on Kildare Street, the building directly faces Molesworth Street and any demonstration of any reasonable size don't gather out of sight of Leinster House, but instead in Molseworth street. Besides I added 2 references to the text in the article and maybe people would like to review some of these 74 instances in the last 12 years in the Irish Times to confirm this noteworthy location. ww2censor (talk) 21:47, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

74? The mentions number 74. But I'd like to remind everyone that newspapers such at these like to write multiple note-like articles on the same topic. There is probably more like 7 or 2 real interesting ones, probably highlighting the fact that a farmer fell over himself and was airlifted to Shannon Airport or something non-notable like that. --Balloholic (talk) 22:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "newspapers such as these"? Are you now an expert on the editorial policy of the Irish Times? Obviously you did not even look at the reference that I added to the article or even properly reviewed the instances I gave. The Irish Times is one of the main and most well respected Irish national daily newspapers, just like The Times and the New York Times are in the US and UK, and is a verifiable source for Irish information. If you don't accept it, then we really will have to throw out all references taken from The Times and the New York Times across the wiki as they are also "newspapers such as these". What newspaper sources would actually satisfy you? ww2censor (talk) 16:16, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am no expert on the editorial policy of the Times and am concerned that you seem to be in such a position? Do you have a COI? I suggest you go elsewhere if you do. the Times no more than the Independent or the Examiner or the Press has been known to be one-sided on some issues and this leads me to suspect you are pushing your own agenda in relation to this newspaper. I will be keeping my eye on you. That will be all. --Balloholic (talk) 16:46, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on a second. What makes you think I have a COI. You are making false accusation and then say "that will be all". You really should be more careful what you accuse people of, and you "will be keeping my eye on me". I wonder what for. Are you going to make another false accusation about me? Are you threatening me? I am shivering in my boots!! You should really AGF, maybe even check out some of my 20,000 edits. You seem to have forgotten that all newspaper can be one-sided on many issues, but in relationship to this article we are dealing with facts not one-sided reporting. Do public demonstrations take place in this street or not and are there verifiable sources? We can always confirm many of the Irish Times' reports with similar reports in at least one or two other national dailys for the same events but that might not suit you either as you don't seem to regards any Irish newspaper as verifiable. you still did not answer my question: What newspaper sources would actually satisfy you? ww2censor (talk) 17:25, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be losing your cool. That is very unhelpful and will not aid the project. Your behaviour is very threatening for someone who claims to have as much experience as you. It seems to be frowning on my efforts because I cannot match your high edit count. That was not the most constructive of your many thousands of edits by far. The fact that you claim either realistically or sarcastically to be "shivering in my boots" is not like an editor of your experience. Perhaps some mentions internationally would break the Irish hold you have. I believe you may be a high profile person in the Times and have stated that calmly. You have overreacted and that leads me to further suspect you of COI and getting itchy feet as the net closes in on you. I did not swear. I said my belief calmly, have held on many seconds and that is on record. I AGF everyone at first glance but your comment led me to suspect you of a crime. I am now even more convinced that i am right and with good reason. I would be very careful if I was you. Anyone can keep an eye on anyone. I am sure you have done that before and you probably are keeping an eye on me because you and some others are following me around. I have interrupted discussions on userpages warning that "another one" has been nominated. I have undergone harsh treatment and have no friends but I keep going with what I believe. Making the project better. That will be all. --Balloholic (talk) 17:41, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{outdent) Balloholic you made accusations and threats and you say I am frowning on your efforts and now you call me a criminal. You have no idea how silly you sound suggesting I overreacted but with such new accusation who would blame me if I did overreact? I asked repeatedly what newspaper sources will satisfy you, but you still refuse to answer that simple question. At least sarcasm is better then accusations and threats. I simply suggested you check out some of my edits to see if your accusation would hold water, well it does not. I have nothing to do with the Irish Times; I doubt you will find more than a handful of edits where I have even cited that newspaper, so go let the tryptophan do its work, then you can retract you threats and accusations. ww2censor (talk) 23:41, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- You're not making much sense. I'm making constructive points about you and about certain articles. You seem to be shooting them down by suggesting you have more authority and waving your high amount of edits in my face. I think if you reread carefully you will find that I have not directly called you a criminal and I would consider it an overeaction. I think you might be connected to this newspaper because of your comments that indicate that. That is my thought. You would think I was sentencing you to death and you are screaming for mercy. I think you are breaking POINT by hammering in my face your agenda on newspaper sources. Sarcasm being better than so called accusations and threats is just your opinion. It matters no more than me thinking you are a newspaper man. Stick to censoring the second world war and don't censor me. I have given my opinion and that will be all. --Balloholic (talk) 14:12, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (it looks like it's snowing) per sources indicated above (particularly by Uncle G) providing sufficient notability. --Oakshade (talk) 16:16, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- - - - But are the sources worthy? Are they notable? There's not much use in them if they're about an account of a man having his tooth extracted or a lamp-post that dogs regularly lift their legs to. There's no snow here at all. You're extremely lucky. --Balloholic (talk) 16:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Balloholic, you raised the question on the reliability of photos - I simply asked how much that applied to other sources. I'm trying to figure out exactly what criteria you are judging by. Now you've just changed the issue from reliability to notability. Autarch (talk) 17:19, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - Autarch, that was the answer I gave to Oakspade who had interrupted your one-sided outburst. I would take issue with that user not this one. --Balloholic (talk) 17:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(indent) Balloholic, we have no idea what you are talking about now. Before this response, the only post I made in the forum was my preference to keep this article. I never "interrupted" anyone.--Oakshade (talk) 21:33, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Happy ^Holidays 02:09, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yiff! A Furry Musical

WP:NOT a crystal ball; the play might be notable after it's actually had a run and been reviewed in third-party publications. HeureusementIci (talk) 03:07, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete might be notable later but it sure as hell isn't right now. JBsupreme (talk) 08:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, what JBsupreme said. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a copyvio of http://furry.wikia.com/wiki/Yiff! - though that is under GFDL, so if the required attribution is added it wouldn't be one. --NE2 19:15, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Boldly redirected to November 2008 Mumbai attacks. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:10, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mumbai terror

It's a biased, speculative, opinion piece that puts forward novel conjectures and questions of the editor who wrote it. Pretty much the only content policy that this doesn't fall foul of is Wikipedia:Copyright policy. This gains us nothing in our coverage of the November 2008 Mumbai attacks. There is zero worth salvaging here. And a redirect from this title doesn't seem useful. Uncle G (talk) 03:01, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The author needs to take this info to the Indian equivalent of the FBI. Redddogg (talk) 04:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Original research, highly speculative, poorly sourced, these events are already covered extensively elsewhere. Chasingsol (talk) 04:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Speculative questions, but contains no actual verified facts. Already better covered elsewhere. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Move more complete article to more appropriate title per WP:ENDASH -Djsasso (talk) 06:03, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Republic Airlines (1979–1986)

Article already exists (Republic Airlines (1979-1986)), this one just has a larger dash in it's title. RightSideNov / talk / contribs 02:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect to the more complete article Republic Airlines (1979-1986). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Reyk _YO! 03:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Having an endash in the title is gramatically correct, Republic Airlines (1979–1986) should be deleted to clear the way for a move of Republic Airlines (1979-1986) to that page. An endash indicates a timespan, which this year-to-year series is. It's the same situation with season articles for sports (ie: 2008–09 NHL season). – Nurmsook! ^talk... 03:55, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep I'm confused about the first couple comments. Is there another article? Two other articles? If they're on the same topic then they need to be merged. The airline is clearly notable and was bought out by Northwest Airlines. Why wouldn't a well established airline be notable? What am I missing? ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:34, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are we talking about the same exaclt article in two places? I don't think we need an AfD to take care of that... but maybe I'm wrong? ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:36, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RESOLVED? It appears someone already took care of the redundancy as there is no AfD template and I can only find one article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:37, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The two articles were not the same; the one with the long dash in the title was a sourceless stub and I have changed it into a redirect. That's why the AfD notice isn't visible anymore. The one with the short dash in the title is a mediocre but unoffensive article and nobody is objecting to it. Discussion now seems to be whether which title is more appropriate- if it's long-dash then we need to delete the redirect so that the content at short-dash can be moved there. Confused? Join the club. Reyk _YO! 05:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete (A7) by John. Non-admin closure. MuZemike (talk) 13:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Yonas Brothers

Few ghits point to MySpace, YouTube, and other social networking sites. Fails WP:BAND. Mr. Vernon (talk) 02:19, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. --Oliver Twisted (Talk) 02:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:BAND. Probably an A7 too because it doesn't look like notability is asserted. Matt (Talk) 02:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7 - no assertion of notability. HeureusementIci (talk) 02:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy deleted. --John (talk) 06:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Hoax article. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:27, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Corey Swift

Hoax, information is not verifiable. There has never been a NASCAR driver named Corey Swift. Too bad that speedy criteria doesn't apply to hoaxes. Good candidate for a quick closure. Royal broil 02:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Supposedly the subject became a NASCAR star, then gave it up to become a successful PGA Tour golfer, then needed a break from golf, so he joined the Air Force to pursue a career in food services. Obvious hoax; I wasn't this. The article creator needs to be warned or blocked. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I warned User:Swiftsvt. Royal broil 02:42, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as quickly as possible, per nom. Ward3001 (talk) 02:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - G3 - Blatant misinformation, tagged. Matt (Talk) 02:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
G3 Speedy as blatant misinformation. HeureusementIci (talk) 02:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Cbl62 (talk) 06:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 00:08, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merrion Road

Non-notable road that has a couple of banks, a school and a hospital located on it. Balloholic (talk) 02:07, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unnotable road only of importance of a small number of locals. Tavix (talk) 02:12, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appears to be a non-notable local road. Royal broil 02:19, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This does appear to be a major artery in Dublin [33] as is the subject of at least one secondary source [34]--Oakshade (talk) 06:33, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So update it if you think it has relevance or has broken records. I suggest that is outdated now though as it was 2004 and many more expensive houses have been sold since then. Indeed it might serve Wikipedia better if the house itself had its own article rather than the little lane it is on. Yellow roads on the map need to have some form of notability other than being yellow and having one house on it. --Balloholic (talk) 16:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 07:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 07:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 17:24, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Silo (band)

Unnotable band who fails WP:BAND. They have no charting singles, they have won no major awards, no notable members, ect. Tavix (talk) 01:48, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, passes WP:MUSIC#C5 2 albums released on Swim ~ records, [35]. Of course the notability of Swim~ is about as weak as my girlfriend likes her coffee, but hey, I don't make the rules. Willing to reconsider if Swim~ gets AfD'd/Prodded. Delete, only claim to fame is a couple of records released on a label whom is also up for deletion. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 05:37, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The rules is actually "an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable" not a notable label so you can happily change your position. Duffbeerforme (talk)
Reply, Swim ~ has been nominated for deletion. Also, just to let you know, they don't automatically pass C5 if the record label has a wikipedia page, they pass C5 if the label actually is notable, per Duffbeerforme. Tavix (talk) 17:33, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 07:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable band, as per WP:BAND. JamesBurns (talk) 07:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable, multiple albums not on appropriate label. Article appears to be written by someone from Swim ~ as have others on the label. Duffbeerforme (talk) 12:34, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 00:10, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beppi's restaurant

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Beppi's restaurant

Non-notable restaurant. Mr. Vernon (talk) 01:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nonnotable. Themfromspace (talk) 01:54, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep This might actually be worth improving. This article calls it "a Sydney institution", and there are several mentions in non-Australian sources, like the New York Times (second hit at Google News). Beppi Polese is listed in 1001 Australians You Should Know, whatever that is. Zagalejo^^^ 04:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the creator of the article was User:Marc Polese (and shares a last name with the restauranteur), I'm slapping a COI tag on this. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 04:27, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead, though there's nothing explicitly promotional in the article as it stands. Zagalejo^^^ 04:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Two page story in Sydney Morning Herald. I fixed the links for the sources. Fifty year old restaurant. "Patrons are known to have been disgusted by tardy service and indifference by the apathetic staff," was not a rave review. But This place is notable per substantial coverage. Also, there's a notable book about Beppi. This is definitely a keep. Needs to be expanded.ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Place was the subject of multiple notable publications satisfying WP:GNG. COI is not a reason to delete. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:55, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, appears to be non-notable. If every diner that got a review in a paper was notable this Project would get overwhelmed --50 years or not. New York City alone would cause a deluge. None of those sources prove otherwise, including the book review of a book that the owner self-authored. It might be a good book, but it does nothing to demonstrate why the restaurant is any more notable. If this is kept, can I list the local sandwich place I go to for lunch? It has more reviews than this place and I like it. --Bobak (talk) 19:54, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If your local sandwich shop gets a two page write up in a large newspaper, has a book about the owner's history, and has other substantial media coverage, yes. :) I'm partial to prosciutto and roasted red pepper Italian sandwiches. What's the place got? ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:20, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 07:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 07:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 07:47, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Strongly mentioned in a biography "Beppi: A Life in Three Courses", over a dozen other mentions in books that may be useful and a sufficiency of news articles. Seems to be ample to write a well-reference, neutral and readable article...which is all that the guidelines seek to achieve - Peripitus (Talk) 07:54, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:35, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Street (Dublin)

Non-notable street in it's own right Balloholic (talk) 01:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:LOCAL, only notable by a select number of locals. Tavix (talk) 02:12, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neither rationale above shows any evidence of determining actual notability, as defined by Wikipedia:Notability. Actually putting the legwork in to find sources, one does in fact find sources documenting this street in depth. ISBN 9780300109238 documents it on pages 669–670, telling us a lot of things from what the narrowest building on the street is to what numbers 9–13 on the street used to be. ISBN 9780946841714 page 129 et seq. tells us some additional information about the Thomas Street fire station. ISBN 9781900949989 page 70 tells us that this street is one of only four market streets in the city. There are also some sources that discuss it in the context of The Liberties. This is on the brink of satisfying the PNC. But since there's clearly verifiable information to be had, the choice, per Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Deletion policy, is between keeping and merging, neither of which involve deletion. Keep. Uncle G (talk) 06:12, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The argument of the sources found by Uncle G far outweigh the very weak WP:ITSNOTABLE arguments to delete this. --Oakshade (talk) 06:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- OK. Then why are these not in the article if they are so notable? If they aren't put in it will be deleted. Arguing in such a silly way is counterproductive. Improve or delete. --Balloholic (talk) 15:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Existing sources demonstrating notability simply not being placed in an article doesn't magically make the sources non-existent. --Oakshade (talk) 17:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It might one day. Get them in now. I don't want to be reading about stubby grubby Dublin streets and I'm sure not many people outside Dublin do either. --Balloholic (talk) 21:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 07:42, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 07:42, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep' just sufficiently notable. Whether individual eds. are interested in reading about streets in Dublin --grubby or not-- is irrelevant.DGG (talk) 12:10, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How can a street be notable for having one or two buildings that have their own articles? The buildings are. The street isn't. --Balloholic (talk) 15:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Uncle G has managed to show that the street is notable. RMHED (talk) 21:35, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - RHMED, don't go with someone else's opinion. Use your own mind. Thomas Street fire station (seriously, the street is notable due to a fire station being located there. Let's find out where the police are...), one of only four market streets in the city (Need I say more???), The Liberties has it's own article already. "This is on the brink of satisfying the PNC". The article does not suggest this anywhere. It is about as notable as a cat's whisker. --Balloholic (talk) 21:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If you want the article improved, do it. You've been shown the sources, and you are as capable as any other editor of using them to improve this article. Incidentally, a certain type of "cat's whisker" is indeed notable. DHowell (talk) 07:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources cited by Uncle G. The street is notable because reliable sources have noted it. Wikipedia is a work in progress and there is no deadline for improvement. We do not delete articles which show clear potential for improvement when reliable sources have been shown to exist and can be used to verify and improve the contents of the article. AFD is not a place to delete things because you don't like the current state of the article, and it is not a place to impose a 5-day deadline on other editors to clean it up. "Improve or delete" is contrary to editing policy. DHowell (talk) 07:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Can the information be verified though? Is it accurate? Is it something other than news material or anything other than where the fire station is or how many people write about it? Is it worthy of inclusion on an encyclopedia? It might be an unlimited encyclopedia but there are still standards. --Balloholic (talk) 14:17, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per most everyone but the nominator. Sources have been shown to exist. Edward321 (talk) 23:49, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Where are these sources? Which ones make it so important? Give more detail. --Balloholic (talk) 23:53, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 03:43, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gilford Road

Non-notable road in it's own right Balloholic (talk) 01:27, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it has only local notability. Tavix (talk) 01:53, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Average little residential streets aren't notable, and nothing to show this isn't average. Nyttend (talk) 14:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Probably not notable, doesn't indicate notability anyway. Matt (Talk) 01:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 07:39, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 07:39, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete A3. (NAC) Tavix (talk) 01:50, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TELEPWN AWPERATORS

This was nominated for speedy deletion A7, and the deletion challenged. The author claims other articles exist on similar teams, and as far as I can tell that's true. At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Birmingham Salvo the decision was made to merge those teams into a single article, which hasn't been done (and perhaps those should be renominated anyway). But I don't know whether this particular one meets the standard of those listed in that AfD, as I have no familiarity with the subject and, to be honest, don't really understand what it is. So, speedy denied, and please, sort this all out. Chick Bowen 01:27, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 02:12, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hecktick's Web Mag

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Hecktick's Web Mag

No assertion of notability, author twice removed the note tag, so AfD'ing. Bunch of info on what's in the magazine/random indiscriminate collection of information (and WP:NOTREPOSITORY) from the e-zine. All "references" are from the magazine, so not really references. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 23:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. Lastingsmilledge (talk) 04:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteCan't find any sources beside the magazine. The second hit from google is this AfD 1. --Jmundo (talk) 07:28, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Happy ^Holidays 01:15, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : no third party WP:RS and reads like a random collect of incoherent information. 16x9 (talk) 01:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mgm|^(talk) 09:50, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bloomsday Rising

Fails WP:BAND in my opinion. ~~SIS~~ 22:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 02:16, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried a search in Google News archives, and also in a library database, to try to find sources that would help to establish WP:N notability. I found none. The lone third-party reference, from SF Weekly, is not enough. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: could not find verifiable 3rd party sources, as per WP:BAND. JamesBurns (talk) 00:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Happy ^Holidays 01:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, couldn't find anything that would pass WP:MUSIC. SF Weekly mention is extremely trivial. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 05:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Graham Oliver. MBisanz ^talk 00:04, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tempest (rock band)

A speedy was declined on this, which kind of surprises me as my first inclination was to just delete it myself. Anyhow, this is a stubby article about a band with one album on a record label whose link goes to an unrelated article (as does the album itself), with a bunch of redlinked members and one who was a member of a moderately notable band. The article is unsourced and, contrary to the statement in removal of the CSD tag, really doesn't assert notability of any kind other than as a side project of a member of a more notable band. If nothing else, this could be merged to that member's article, I suppose, but right now, as this stands, it doesn't meet WP:MUSIC, IMO. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC) Tony Fox (arf!) 18:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Saxon (band) go well beyond "moderately notable" (18 top 100 UK singles and 9 top 50 UK albums), so WP:MUSIC#C7 is perhaps satisfied, particularly as this also suggests that 2 members are former members of The Glitter Band. Having said that, I couldn't find much coverage of the band, and a merge somewhere else may be the best course of action.--Michig (talk) 07:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: notability not established, as per WP:BAND. JamesBurns (talk) 01:00, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I appreciate that Graham Oliver and Saxon are notable, however notability is not inherited, and there seems to be no evidence of notability specific for this band. It's sufficient to mention the band in Graham Oliver's page - which we already do. I agree that Speedy Delete wasn't appropriate btw, as notability was asserted, and I think it needs a discussion (e.g., in case anyone can dig up sources to back up those assertions). My vote should not be taken to mean Delete for any future deletions, where evidence of notability has been found. Mdwh (talk) 15:09, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Happy ^Holidays 01:12, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect A7 is clearly not approiate for a band containing a member of Saxon. Band itself does not appear to be worthy of more than a redirect. If Graham Oliver has an article I see no reason not to redirect it there. Duffbeerforme (talk) 15:08, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 07:38, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Happy ^Holidays 02:08, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robbie Stevens

This person may not be notable enough for inclusion in wikipedia. It might also be the case that the article is written by the subject, creating a conflict of interest. Richard Cavell (talk) 01:12, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:ATHLETE. Tavix (talk) 02:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No substantial coverage. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Calling him "world-class" is clearly unjustified, as evidenced by his personal best results. No sign of competing on the highest level of athletics, which would usually mean Olympics or World Championships. Punkmorten (talk) 10:12, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 07:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 07:38, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (NAC) RMHED (talk) 17:58, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vijayanth Thapar

I believe that this article falls under BIO1E. Although Capt. Thapar was honored with a Vir Chakra for his act of bravery, there is almost no other information about him which asserts his notability. Shovon (talk) 16:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 16:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The award is the third level of Indian bracery awards -- see Vir Chakra; if it were the highest level, there ould be a case for inclusion. DGG (talk) 20:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It is indeed always sad when someone dies at the hands of another. However, this entry presents the case of a person who was not of major nobility (prominence or distinction;)before death. The medal, that was received, is a nice gift of appreciation and respect but is not like having received a major Indian medal, a Knight of the Bath, Legion of Honour, Order of the Garter, Golden Fleece or state or internationally reciginzed honour, knighthood or award Royalhistorian (talk) 09:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Veer Chakra is very renoun award from India. In 1000 Million Popultaion country get awarded by Veer Charkra made notable.Aminami (talk) 12:57, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WOW, that's actually true! LOL at first I though you were exaggerating, India is HUGE! In my country we call that a Billion! Ryan4314 (talk) 10:39, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Happy ^Holidays 01:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability is more or less automatic following a Param Vir Chakra but not this lesser, though still distinguished, medal. See also WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:01, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I think people are getting hung up on the Vir Chakra award, this is not why he's notable. He's notable for his actions in the Kargil War, I Googled him and it turns out he was portrayed in a Bollywood film; LOC Kargil (now remember all you Americans, Wikipedia is international, just because you don't watch Bollywood, doesn't mean it's not popular/huge in Asia). Ryan4314 (talk) 09:48, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with Ryan 59.95.117.7 (talk) 12:54, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Above IP appears to have only made 3 edits, all AFD discussions. Ryan4314 (talk) 22:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I totally agree with Ryan. Vijayanth Thapar is extremely famous in India for his actions in the Kargil War. The mere fact that he might not necessarily turn in lots of results in a google search does not mean he is not notable. --PhyrnxWarrior (talk) 10:19, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 13:30, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FiveFWD

Based on the following web searches:

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL,
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL,

the article subject appears to lack significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject, and consequently does not comply with the notability guideline. PhilKnight (talk) 00:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No reliable sources that show notability per WP:WEB. Schuym1 (talk) 01:11, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:02, 8 December 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) 05:13, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No WP:IS, WP:RS = no notability per WP:WEB. Descíclope (talk) 03:44, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Happy ^Holidays 01:08, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:WEB Matt (Talk) 02:54, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:WEB. The Rolling Camel (talk) 21:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List of Lupin III video games. MBisanz ^talk 00:04, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lupin the 3rd (Taito)

Most the information on the page is already covered by List of Lupin III video games as it is just a listing of info. What isn't is trivial information The page has been around for a while with no serious updates. じんない 21:00, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. じんない 01:56, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Lupin III video games Dandy Sephy (talk) 16:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Lupin III video games, due to lack of reliable sources. Marasmusine (talk) 20:10, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Nothing that is not mentioned in either the list or main articles. I don't know if a redirect would make sense as there is a negligible edit history as well as a non-plausible search term. MuZemike (talk) 20:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: old, obscure video game, the article isn't likely to develop any further. I'm opposed to making it a redirect as it's a non-plausible search term.--Piccolo Modificatore Laborioso (talk) 00:40, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Happy ^Holidays 01:08, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think this is more of a matter of cleanup, and I don't think that's grounds for deletion. Several other games from the series have good articles, with a little effort I think this article could be of the same caliber. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 03:54, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I can't agree with Amwestover at all. The other games (or at least some of them) have much more developed pages and are possibly more notable. It's not a cleanup issue because there is nothing to clean up Dandy Sephy (talk) 08:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a while since I was around AfDs a whole lot, but "cleanup" here looks like a blanket expression for editing matters not involving deletion. I'll add a keep, since the topic seems like it can be reasonably expected to make for a valid article. The process may take years, but those are the breaks of running a volunteer-based encyclopedia and the stub isn't causing harm by sitting there. --Kiz o r 16:41, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as redundant. -- Goodraise (talk) 16:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, looks like a stub to me. I would just tag it with {{expand}}. --Bobak (talk) 19:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 13:32, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nailed Promise

Contested PROD. Non-notable band. Article references consist of band's own website, amazon, myspace and other Wikipedia articles. role^player 12:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources, highly non-neutral tone, fails WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: article fails to establish notability, per WP:BAND. JamesBurns (talk) 00:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: References added, article tone needs work. notability established. Staple of Dallas/Christian music scene. Article creates context to scene and background of artists from P.O.D. to Evanescence. 22:17, 18 December 2008— Preceding unsigned comment added by Theoplex (talk • contribs) 04:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Happy ^Holidays 01:07, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obvious vanity article. --Chimro (talk) 03:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as vanity, I think the nominator has this one nailed. JBsupreme (talk) 08:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--band is simply not notable. Two albums on decidedly minor labels, and the assertion of international touring--but it remains an assertion, since I can find nothing that says anything about it, let alone something significant. Drmies (talk) 16:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per User:TenPoundHammer The Rolling Camel (talk) 21:08, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 07:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Aitias // discussion 17:26, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orange County ska scene

Page originally proposed for deletion in 09/07, disputed and then proposed for merger. Since that time no substantive edits have been made to the page except to add nonnotable bands to that section. Article is entirely original research centered around a poorly formed concept which itself is very POV. There is significant overlap between this article and more notable topics like Ska and List of bands from Los Angeles. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 03:24, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Third wave ska. Orpheus (talk) 03:33, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Whatever is this article? Absolutely no demonstration of notability, and it seems rather hopeless for getting any better. Nyttend (talk) 03:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong Keep~~ Orange County is not exactly LA. I found stories on Google News pretty easily. Added a couple and I'm sure there are more. These were just two quickies available from the last few months. A notable subject, article may need some work.ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:24, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

None of those sources use the term "Orange County ska scene". Lumping all of them into that category without verifying it with a reliable source is original research. Using sources which mention the term, but do not describe anything about, violates WP:NEO. Cobbling together sources about bands that are from cities in Orange County, but do not directly address the Orange County ska scene is synthesis. There are no reliable sources that can be employed to prevent this article from relying heavily on primary research. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 04:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Ska. As I noted on the article's talk page last year, this topic doesn't appear to be notable enough to stand alone. Yes, there were a lot of ska bands from OC during the '90s (as a southern California resident and a fan of ska-punk who was in high school & college during the '90s I can attest to this), but there just isn't enough to say about it that wouldn't fit nicely into the ska article. It's rather hard to write articles about regional "scenes", as source material from outside that scene is often difficult to turn up. In the year since I tagged the article for merger into the ska article (I notice the merge tag has been removed...not sure why) I haven't come across any sources that would help this article, and I've done a decent amount of reading on the subject (it relates to the topic of my masters thesis). Merging what verifiable, NPOV info there is into the ska artice would be appropriate; the rest can then be deleted as the title is a very unlikely search term. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:58, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The merge tag has been there over a year, I'd say that we could probably invoke WP:BOLD and just do the merge. It doesn't seem like anyone is proposing the entire content be deleted, and making it a redirect doesn't require admin action. Any objections? Orpheus (talk) 13:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I created a section for the information in Ska. I'd like to see most or all of it included as I think it's notable and interesting information. I didn't realize No Doubt and Sublime and many other major ska punk bands came out of Orange County. The list of bands is rather long, so maybe it can be put in a table so it take up less space? Also, while you're at it, there's a proposal to merge Third wave ska. I think one great ska article would be a good idea. But others may disagree...ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Third wave ska. Delete: Not notable enough to stand on its own. JamesBurns (talk) 05:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Perhaps some of this information (if original research can be so classified) belongs elsewhere, but not in its entirety nor without references. Bongo matic 23:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Happy ^Holidays 01:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 01:01, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The majority of the article is speculation while the rest seems to be taken from the Ska article. Tavix (talk) 01:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Ska. A better place to include notable information on the numerous bands that came out of Orange County like No Doubt, Sublime and many others. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Aitias // discussion 17:30, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

La Tormenta

This article lacks of notability, a quick google search doesn't show a lot of English article about it. Fangfufu (talk) 00:55, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think on English Wikipedia, notability should be mainly, if not only, be judged on English search results. I think if it does not appear in any English third party sources, most English speaker would not know about it. Otherwise someone else would have wrtten about it in English. Fangfufu (talk) 02:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia as a whole is supposed to pander to everyone, not only English speakers. That type of argumentation would only lead to propagation of systemic bias. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 05:59, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ How is notability contingent on English-language sources alone? Just because this is English Wikipedia, it doesn't mean that foreign-language sources are less notable than English ones. A quick search on Google Colombia led me to a source from Colombia's version of TV Guide. Likewise, the Spanish version can be translated. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 02:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I forgot to do this earlier: change my vote to keep. I'll try to translate a bit from the Spanish article. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 07:31, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- AOL.com has a feature on La Tormenta. The majority of the sources are in Spanish, but WP:BIAS says that "availability of sources is not uniform". You always can use translate.google.com.--Jmundo (talk) 07:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No-brainer, 216 episode run on Telemundo = easy notability. I'll find a couple of sources and add them to the article. While English language sources are to be preferred, I know of nothing in policy or guideline that excludes foreign language sources. Obviously, if we don't know what they say, they are of little use, but most of the various foreign language projects have people who can translate if need be. See generally WP:NONENG. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 18:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. English Wikipedia is an encyclopedia about the whole world that happens to be written in English, not an encyclopedia only about the English-speaking world. Any equivalent TV series in an anglophone country would be consired notable enough to have articles about individual episides, characters, etc. so surely we have room for an article on this whole series. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Zoids. Mgm|^(talk) 09:48, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shadow Fox

This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of Zoids through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research, trivial model details, and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, and this is too trivial to require any separate coverage. TTN (talk) 20:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into a list of Zoids. A whole article for each Zoid is a bit much, but we should keep at least the more notable ones for people who come to wikipedia looking to learn, as WP is probably an early stop for someone unfamiliar with the show. Tealwisp (talk) 21:53, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

discuss how to merge in the appropriate place, which is not here. DGG (talk) 04:07, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge is an alternative to deletion, akin to deletion, but less severe. It is a legitimate stance for an AFD. Tealwisp (talk) 19:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Happy ^Holidays 01:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 00:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unnotable fancruft. Tavix (talk) 02:07, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List of Zoids. How much should be merged can be discussed on the relevant article pages. Mgm|^(talk) 09:46, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Black Rhimos

This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of Zoids through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research, trivial model details, and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, and this is too trivial to require any separate coverage. TTN (talk) 20:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into a list of Zoids. A whole article for each Zoid is a bit much, but we should keep at least the more notable ones for people who come to wikipedia looking to learn, as WP is probably an early stop for someone unfamiliar with the show. Tealwisp (talk) 21:53, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

discuss how to merge in the appropriate place, which is not here. DGG (talk) 04:07, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Happy ^Holidays 01:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 00:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do not Delete per DGG. My preference in these cases is usually to just redirect and let interested editors merge from the history, but others object to that. In any event, a technical deletion is not required. Eluchil404 (talk) 08:21, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List of Zoids. Mgm|^(talk) 09:46, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rev Raptor

This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of Zoids through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research, trivial model details, and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, and this is too trivial to require any separate coverage. TTN (talk) 20:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into a list of Zoids. A whole article for each Zoid is a bit much, but we should keep at least the more notable ones for people who come to wikipedia looking to learn, as WP is probably an early stop for someone unfamiliar with the show. Tealwisp (talk) 21:31, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

discuss how to merge in the appropriate place, which is not here. DGG (talk) 04:01, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Happy ^Holidays 01:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 00:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unnotable fancruft. Tavix (talk) 02:07, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mgm|^(talk) 09:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

King Gojulas

This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of Zoids through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research, trivial model details, and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, and this is too trivial to require any separate coverage. TTN (talk) 20:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into a list of Zoids. A whole article for each Zoid is a bit much, but we should keep at least the more notable ones for people who come to wikipedia looking to learn, as WP is probably an early stop for someone unfamiliar with the show. Tealwisp (talk) 21:53, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

discuss the merge elsewhere. as it would make no sense for there not to be at least a redirect, this is not a deletion question./DGG (talk) 03:24, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

unlikely search terms may be deleted entirely, so this discussion is perfectly valid, but with higher stakes. Tealwisp (talk) 19:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Happy ^Holidays 01:20, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Merge or redirect arguments are perfectly fine for an AfD and are not grounds to get the discussion thrown out. Both are arguments to remove an article from Wikipedia, so they are forms of deletion. It makes no sense to derail a legitimate discussion and start another one somewhere else, because everyone knows that there will be no other discussion, that nothing will get done, and that these inappropriate articles will languish in the same unacceptable state forever. Reyk _YO! 02:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

what you say here is clear contrary to present WP:Deletion policy [36]--they are unambiguously forms of keep. If they were forms of delete, how could a merge or a redirect be done by editing without coming here? It has to be one way or the other about a merge: if it is deletion, it can be done only here (which i think would be absurdly limited & greatly discourage compromise and add to the work) or it is a form of editing, in which case it does not belong here at all. The way to get articles improved is to discuss them; the way to get merges performed is to propose them. almost all of these groups of afd proposals are for things where there would be agreement on a reasonable merge. DGG (talk) 03:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Baloney. Plenty of deletes don't end up here: speedies, prods and transwikis to name three. Also plenty of obvious speedies and transwikis end up here and having that as the outcome of the deletion discussion is perfectly legit. Redirects and merges can therefore also be acceptable results of an AfD discussion. But you haven't addressed the real point of my argument: the fact that it is useless to move discussion from a forum where things get discussed and things get done to an out-of-the-way talk page somewhere where nothing will get discussed and nothing will get done. Reyk _YO! 07:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they can be acceptable outcomes, but these pages are supposed to discuss deletion, so someone should only bring the page here if it should be deleted rather than redirected, merged, kept or otherwise edited. As for your claim: "Merge or redirect arguments are perfectly fine for an AfD and are not grounds to get the discussion thrown out. Both are arguments to remove an article from Wikipedia, so they are forms of deletion." That is incorrect. Merge is incorporation of material in a different article and redirect retains the article history, so neither leads to removal of material. Neither - especially merge - removes the article from Wikipedia. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 00:55, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unnotable fictional weapon. Tavix (talk) 02:08, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do not Delete per DGG. Redirect or merge is appropriate her and neither option requires deletion. Eluchil404 (talk) 08:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List of Zoids. How much to merge can be discussed on the talk page. Mgm|^(talk) 09:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zatton (Zoids)

This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of Zoids through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research, trivial model details, and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, and this is too trivial to require any separate coverage. TTN (talk) 20:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into a list of Zoids. A whole article for each Zoid is a bit much, but we should keep at least the more notable ones for people who come to wikipedia looking to learn, as WP is probably an early stop for someone unfamiliar with the show. Tealwisp (talk) 21:53, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Discuss elsewhere Bringing these here as a will have the effect of deleting random articles on te basis of how much patience people have in dealing with them, which is not rational approach., Tags can be put on any number of aticles in a few minutes, t hat take hours for proper defense and judgment. That's what talk pages are for. DGG (talk) 03:28, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Happy ^Holidays 01:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 00:55, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the information is already covered in List of Zoids. Tavix (talk) 01:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do not Delete per DGG. Redirect or merge is appropriate her and neither option requires deletion. Eluchil404 (talk) 08:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 00:04, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Singapore Mission

There's been general consensus in the past to not have articles for individual missions of the LDS Church. This is because there are hundreds of missions (340-odd) and the names and boundaries of them have changed many, many times over the course of the church's history. Rather, it's been decided that the information that would be found in such an article can be placed in Mission (LDS Church) and/or an article about the church in a specific country or territory. See some precedents for this here and here. In light of this, I have taken the information in this article and placed it in by-country articles: LDS Church in Singapore, LDS Church in Malaysia, and LDS Church in Sri Lanka. These articles are not sourced well because the article in question was not sourced well, but at least this nomination can solve the initial problem of another article about an LDS Church mission. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:02, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question We do accept articles on individual dioceses--indeed, individual bishops of the Roman Catholic , and anglican, and other territorial churches, and I am not sure on what basis we could decide not to do he same for every religion organised in such a way, with reasonable subdivisions. The suggestion must be that in some respect these geographic divisions of the LDS are in some sense less important. I'd assume that printed LDS sources about every one of them could be found, though its not the sort of thing I'm prepared to search for myself. DGG (talk) 03:05, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's true, sources would be difficult to find for most; there are some, but almost universally they are self-published histories. Missions are somewhat different than dioceses, in that in most areas of the world they are simply a geographical division that full-time missionaries work in and are not part of the regular church heirarchy for members of the church living in those areas. (In areas with very few members, however, they do form part of the regular church heirarchy since the church has a lay ministry and the local leaders in these areas are drawn from the full-time missionary ranks, who are usually American expatriates. It's all kind of a convoluted structure and not consistent at all, as can be gleaned from Mission (LDS Church).) As someone with a little knowledge/experience in the area, it would be my opinion that a by-country article setup for the LDS Church would work much better—not only for the differences in jurisdiction that exist but also because of the relatively few number of members of this church worldwide. The church itself publishes an almanac which discusses the history of the church in a by-country and territory manner, not in a by-mission or other church unit fashion. (That's also the approach taken by the church's website.) But I am open to change, if that's wanted, and I don't want to force this approach on the unwilling. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the information presented, I think I;d probably agree with your analysis. I gather that the structure and organizations of the different mission territories are not particularly stable, and that would be another reason for using the broader unit. DGG (talk) 09:55, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 00:54, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A major difference, of course, between dioceses etc. (does the LDS Church use this term? Sorry that I can't remember either way) in Catholic, Anglican, etc. churches is that a bishop in those churches is one of the highest few clerics, overseeing a large number of priests and a large number of congregations, while an LDS bishop is much "lower in the hierarchy", having responsibility for a much smaller area. Nyttend (talk) 14:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with Good Ol’factory's point on number of missions and instability of mission names and boundaries. But I am not sure about one article per country. They are sort of short, and we could end up with 180 of them. Maybe the content should be arranged by broader geographical area, such as South East Asia, Polynesia, Central America etc.? Aymatth2 (talk) 17:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that may be preferable, and perhaps the articles I started could be merged somehow into broader articles. I was thinking one per country as the maximum finest level of break-down, not necessarily one that should happen in each case. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment somethign needs to be merged either we have country articles LDS Church in Singapore, LDS Church in Malaysia, etc. or this mission article and no country ones. I note that the mission has under 7000 members, so that it is hardly on the scale of an Anglican or RC diocese. If kept, rename to Singapore Mission (Latter Day Saints) to make its scope clear. A large number of items appearing as subheadings need to be coverted to bulleted text. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:43, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mgm|^(talk) 09:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistani Web portals

I don't see how this collection is encyclopedic, as per WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:INDISCRIMINATE Quality check 14:51, 16 December 2008 (UTC)(talk)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 00:50, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not DMOZ. Zetawoof_(ζ) 03:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR; this is just a collection of external links. Maralia (talk) 04:04, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Aitias // discussion 13:34, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Newtown Blues

Delete non notable sports club Mayalld (talk) 07:22, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:33, 8 December 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) 05:13, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 00:50, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Just added some refs to establish notability. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:54, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The general principle has been accepted that English association football clubs at level ten are accepted as notable, and it would seem that this club plays at at least an equivalent level within the GAA system. I think it's time that some sort of notability criterion was drawn up for sports teams in general, because the only one that seems to work without having to go through AfDs for each individual case is the one for English football. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Phil Bridger Tavix (talk) 20:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ... discospinster _talk 16:55, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Grate Potatoe Famin of Walnut Grove

No ghits on this; probable hoax. Mr. Vernon (talk) 00:39, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Ditto, not hits. ttonyb1 (talk) 00:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. De728631 (talk) 00:46, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there probably isn't any hits because potato, great, and famine is spelled wrong... Still an unnotable event, probably speedifiable. Tavix (talk) 02:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article says that Walnut Grove is a township in North Dakota, but a search of the GNIS reveals nothing (townships, communities, or anything else) named "Walnut Grove" in the entire state. If it "were a township", I could understand, but if it "is a township", it would still exist, and the GNIS would surely have it — therefore, inevitably a hoax. Nyttend (talk) 14:27, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is hoax. --Tamás Kádár (talk) 16:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - G3 added. — neuro^(talk) 16:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Aitias // discussion 17:33, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dorset Street (Dublin)

Non-notable street that has a load of pubs, fast food outlets and small retail units on it. Talkpage indicates a user who thinks this article is a stub and cannot think of anything notable to say about it. It says it is an important thoroughfare but I have searched high and low, up and down, left,right, through, centre and diagonally inside-out and outside-in, upside-down and downside-up, north, south, east, and west and I am unable to find a reason for such an absurd statement. Thanks. Balloholic (talk) 00:37, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your subjective estimation of its importance is irrelevant. Our criterion here at Wikipedia is notability, which is not subective. This street is documented on pages 189–191 of ISBN 9780300109238. It is given a fair amount of detail on page 19 of ISBN 0717127508, and several of the houses on that street are documented on page 44 of ISBN 9781900639347. The Primary Notability Criterion is satisfied. Keep. Uncle G (talk) 05:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Agree with Uncle G. Passing the core criteria of WP:NOTABILITY is what counts, not one user's opinion. --Oakshade (talk) 06:21, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm sure that the first and third books cited by Uncle G cover it (the second ISBN doesn't appear to be valid), but the normal way of proceeding (I can't remember the title for the page where this kind of thing is covered) is only to have articles for the most important streets of the city. I know of at least three printed sources documenting a little residential cul-de-sac near where my grandparents used to live, but if I were to write an article about it using those sources, it would be in gross violation of the normal way of doing things. In conclusion: no "vote" by me, because I can't find any policy or even essay page dealing with this question. Nyttend (talk) 14:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The normal way of proceeding is Wikipedia:Notability, not editors making subjective judgements of what "the most important streets of the city" are. This is not an encyclopaedia of what is subjectively judged to be important by Wikipedia editors. This is an encyclopaedia of what is notable, i.e. what has been noted by the world at large. And this has been. (I made a typing error in hand-transcribing the second book's ISBN from its title leaf verso. I've corrected it above.) Writing from sources is not a "gross violation of the normal way of doing things". It is the normal way of doing things, per our content policies. That is what one is supposed to do. Uncle G (talk) 15:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - What I suggest is that if this street is thought notable then please write the article properly so that it appears notable. Otherwise delete/redirect to list of streets until such a time as someone decides to bring it to that level. I realise Wikipedia doesn't have a time limit and it is a growing project but neither is a deposit for links to every street in the world. If it is to exist at the most basic level it should at least make its point of notability known immediately. There can be no argument if these streets continue to exist as they do and are not improved. One line streets in particular will not be lost through deletion as it is very simple for someone to come along later and recreate the article in a better way with many more lines. --Balloholic (talk) 15:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just sufficient material to show notability.DGG (talk) 12:18, 23 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- Nowhere near enough. Seamus Blowin Heaney was born in a family farmhouse called Mossbawn. Will Mossbawn be getting one as well or is this just the self-satisfied Dublin street preservation society? --Balloholic (talk) 16:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Internationally, Roald Dahl was born on Fairwater Road, Llandaff. What sort of standard are we setting here people? Because we aren't seeing it in other countries. --Balloholic (talk) 16:19, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Uncle G. Edward321 (talk) 00:06, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not in keeping with policy internationally. --Balloholic (talk) 17:10, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 the WP:SNOWBALL clause. Any merge discussions can be taken to the talk page. (NAC) Tavix (talk) 20:36, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Life Mel honey

I speedy deleted this as blatant advert. The editor protested and, while I think my judgment was correct, I have sufficient doubt to bring it here. I see no indication of notability. The author found one study on the product. Fails notability in my book. Pigman☿ 00:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While notability is, admittedly, marginal, the product has been the subject of medical study and high-profile celebrity news coverage. I took out the spammy writing and brought it closer to acceptable Wiki-language. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the additional news source, Ecoleetage. It really improves the article and the argument to keep it. As you say, it's borderline notability. I still come down on the delete side unless more substantive stuff can be turned up but that's me. I prefer more solid sourcing than an entertainment story basically consisting of restating the PR info from the company and a couple of celebrity purchasers. Pigman☿ 02:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the entertainment story came from Harrods, not the Life Mel people -- I saw four different versions of that story and all of them quoted Harrods as hyping up Sienna and Kylie as the honey lovers. But even if we overlook Sienna and Kylie (which is pretty hard...hellooooooo, ladies!), this has been the subject of an independent medical study published in the 2006 edition of Medical Oncology. That, by itself, should be enough to push it over the margin. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad I brought it here. I seriously fell down on what could be found on Life Mel. I don't consider the story coming from Harrod's much different than if it was from the Mel people: they are selling the stuff and thus have an interest in promoting it. And at £42 per 120g, the profit margin must be nice. I'm also not a fan of the idea that whatever a "celebrity" buys is instantly notable. A factor to consider perhaps but it's too close to "inherited notability" for my taste. Maybe it's just me but I clearly see the hand of Harrod PR releases behind the content of all these news stories. In other words, a kind of deliberately manufactured notability. Obviously consensus is heavily in favour of keeping the article right now so I don't think my argument will hold much water to the end result of the discussion. Pigman☿ 04:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think one of the best rationales for keeping the article is the fact that it's widely mentioned on discussion boards for people with cancer, yet is supported only by a small, uncontrolled study and some case reports from a conference poster. A more balanced view of the evidence would be useful. The Guardian blog[37] is a good source, but I'm not sure what we've determined before on whether the online blogs of major newspapers are sufficiently reliable as sources, even when authored by the journalists that work on the main newspaper. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed on the best rationale. How do you know the study was small and uncontrolled? I was wondering about the quality of study but didn't know where to check for details. My understanding of newspapers blogs is that they vary widely/wildly in quality and reliability from newspaper to newspaper. Personally, I'd probably take it on a case-by-case basis but I don't know if that's WP consensus in any way. There is a reliable sources noticeboard where such a question could probably be answered. Pigman☿ 07:33, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The full-text paper is available online as pdf: [38] I'll drop a note at the reliable sources noticeboard, see if they have any feel for the Guardian Science blog. It looks reasonably reputable to me, and the entry appears to be written by one of The Guardian's science correspondents, but I don't read the blog regularly. Espresso Addict (talk) 08:38, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- —G716 <^T·_C> 01:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- —G716 <^T·_C> 01:34, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Good work Eco.... Johnfos (talk) 01:36, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable fad; advertisement; fringe science —G716 <^T·_C> 01:38, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ecoleetage's cleanup. Themfromspace (talk) 01:42, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Added a couple more sources and a second clinical study. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:08, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be the same Medical Oncology reference. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:17, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. Medical jargon is a foriegn language to me. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems a valid potential alternative medicine, with one published study & a conference abstract on case studies (see refs in article), plus some national newspaper & television coverage (ITV This Morning referred to: [39]). Some more independent mentions: Guardian Science blog, Apitherapy News, Sky News, Leeds Beekeepers Association, Channel 4 news feed It's also mentioned at many cancer support group boards, so there are likely to be readers looking for it here. I've added a link to the pdf of the article so that readers can evaluate the claims. It should probably be moved to Life Mel Honey, as that seems to be the name used. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to another sound rescue effort by Ecoleetage who has established at least marginal, but acceptable notability with the addition of multiple sources that verify the subject's existence and interest to substantial enough people to justify inclusion on a paperless encyclopedia. I also made a minor grammartical correction to this only a couple days old article to help improve it further. Happy Holidays! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Apitherapy. There is enough sourced material (good job!) to be worth a section, but this article is all about the product's use as an alternative medicine. Some nice sources discussing the significance of the production process or LMH's impact on society or the business world or something like that would move me into the keep camp. - Eldereft (cont.) 17:55, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 03:44, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Generous alzir!

Musician with some playtime, but most ghits are Myspace/etc. pages, or occasional listings of bands playing from local newspapers. I haven't found any secondary sources/press coverage. Fails to meet WP:MUSICBIO. Delete Mr. Vernon (talk) 00:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the author of the article is the subject of the article. Clear WP:COI. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 00:35, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, vanity article by user about to be blocked. Daniel Case (talk) 05:39, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Advert. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 12:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above. --Bobak (talk) 19:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom--CyberGhostface (talk) 23:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Aitias // discussion 13:35, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Steam games

This article was originally proposed for deletion by me a few days ago. It was then deprodded by User:Tgies, who improved it to the point where you can actually tell what it's about. However, I still feel it should be deleted because the subject is rather trivial to begin with and, because the number of games available is over 500 and still increasing, such a list would rapidly become a gigantic indiscriminate mess that violates Wikipedia not being a directory. The Steam article already mentions half a dozen or so of the more high-profile games available on it, and I think that is all that is warranted. Reyk _YO! 00:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: article reads like an advert for Valve Corporation's products Jubilee♫clipman 01:27, 22 December 2008 (UTC) Additional: an advert for the console that is. Jubilee♫clipman 02:27, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Steam is itself a very notable delivery platform. We have lists of games available for different consoles, and so on. This is no different. Not all of the products are from Valve. - Richard Cavell (talk) 01:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Never noticed that before. Perhaps they should also be deleted as blatant advertising... Jubilee♫clipman 01:42, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wal-mart is notable but we don't list every product they sell. Reyk _YO! 01:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - He has a point though: List of Wii games, List of PlayStation 3 games, List of GameCube games, List of Xbox 360 games, etc, etc, how do they get away with those??? IMHO, those are also blatant advertising for their respective console developers, and should be removed, though it would take a brave man to tag them.... Jubilee♫clipman 02:27, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't think these lists are advertising; I just think they're pretty trivial. I mean, every game is for some platform or other, and distributed by some vendor or other, so every game in the world would end up on one of these lists. Reyk _YO! 02:33, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hold on a second, there is a substantial difference. Steam is a delivery system, not the platform on which the game is played. If we compare List of Wii games to List of The Colbert Report episodes, then List of Steam games is comparable to List of television shows available in iTunes Music Store (which I happen to notice is a redirect). I'm not convinced by your argument, although others seem to be. Please explain why we should have this article and not List of video games sold by Wal-mart, or alternatively, why we should have the Wal-mart list. Pagra shtak 15:18, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — All list (especially the future games) items may need sourcing and possibly excess cruft cleaned up, (I don't think demo availability is necessary.) but I don't think outright deletion is the solution here. MuZemike (talk) 13:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Richard. — neuro^(talk) 14:21, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Steam is a notable platform, I don't think this article is problematic as is. --Bobak (talk) 19:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not a Wikipedia insider like you guys, all wrapped up in technical details of rule definitions and apparently ever-eager to delete someone's work. I'm a user who was referring to the aforementioned list because I needed the info it contains. (Specifically, I wanted to see if Rome Total War was a Steam game.) As a businessman, the satisfaction of my customers is paramount. Do you guys ever even think of we users in your little discussions? It doesn't appear so. Please devote your energies to creating more info for us, the public, rather than deleting info. And before you write that I "vandalized" this page... yes, I probably submitted this comment incorrectly. Sorry, but the Help files aren't that great for new users.Markus451 (talk) 12:47, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We are all trying to improve the encyclopedia together, so please assume good faith with other users. MuZemike (talk) 18:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have previously brought up the potential of such an article on WP:VG, where it received a reasonably positive response. If it hadn't been made now, I would have created it later down the line. Steam tends to be more than a mere distribution platform, although it should probably not be compared with consoles. Its more on the same level as the lists for Xbox live, Games for Windows and WiiWare. That's not to say that the list doesn't have issues: it needs references, the availability of the demos should probably be ditched, and ideally it needs the sort of stuff that shows how integrated any given product is into the various non-download features in the Steam system, as it is not a merely a download service. The list is perfectly viable, and although not brilliant at present, can be improved with work. -- Sabre (talk) 18:34, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WITHDRAW- I withdraw my nomination. Reyk _YO! 23:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note — The AFD should be kept open as another user besides the nom supports deletion. MuZemike (talk) 03:50, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 00:03, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eimsbush

No relevance whatsoever! Tapes???--85.180.14.117 (talk) 02:18, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A Google news search turns up plenty of German-language media coverage: [40]. Maybe one of our German editors can confirm all is okay with these sources? Ecoleetage (talk) 05:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - falls way short on WP:MUSIC. The question here is "besides the tapes, what else sets them apart from the pack of local acts?"... and mixtapes generally do not help in an act's quest for notability under WP:MUSIC. Without any objective coverage from independent, reliable sources, the answer seems more and more likely to be "nothing." 147.70.242.54 (talk) 23:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
im from Germany and I, too, seriously doubt the relevance of a label that only publishes tapes.--85.180.50.64 (talk) 00:34, 19 December 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) 00:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non notable record label. Tavix (talk) 00:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Happy ^Holidays 02:07, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggs package

Neologism for some purported offensive "package" that, in fact, has been around almost as long as the game of American football itself. Pre-T formation teams used multiple "blocking backs" (quarterbacks) as late as the 1930s. According to the article, the term was "coined" in 2008. B.Wind (talk) 03:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete insufficient coverage in reliable sources. A few minor mentions in Google News, however all are minor. Icewedge (talk) 05:05, 17 December 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) 00:21, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an obvious Neologism. If it was coined in 2008, it is highly unlikely for it to have "everyday usage". Tavix (talk) 02:00, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Plainly not something made up by a Wikipedia editor as a joke, but also not enough coverage for notability. Nyttend (talk) 14:12, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into a relevant article. This appears to be an NFL variant of the much more notable A-11 offense. --Bobak (talk) 19:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Happy ^Holidays 02:07, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arnar Knútsson and Filmus Productions

This person may not have achieved notability. His company appears to have done commercials for a few multinationals, but nothing that has been featured. Also, the article may be self-promotional.
I am also nominating his company, and will list it along with him to make things easier. The article states that the company produces feature films, but I cannot see any on the company's website. He's done a few commercials and other small-time things, but I do not see notability. - Richard Cavell (talk) 11:48, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails notability. -Yupik (talk) 12:42, 17 December 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) 00:21, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per above. --Bobak (talk) 19:37, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 17:38, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2008-09 RAF Youth League: North Wales Region

Contested prod. Non notable youth league. Not fully professional. No sources. Fails WP:GNG and WP:V. Also see related articles below. Nouse4aname (talk) 12:20, 17 December 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) 00:21, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - These leagues may possibly be suitable for an article, but not ones for an individual season. Dancarney (talk) 12:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agree with Dancarney. --Bobak (talk) 19:37, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - WRU Youth Leagues: Blues Region should probably be looked too. Dancarney (talk) 09:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mgm|^(talk) 09:39, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It-trunciera tal-qala

This page in Maltese has exceeded the time limit of two weeks within which a translation should be provided. Listed at WP:PNT on December 3rd. I would prefer to see this entry translated, but do not know enough Maltese to translate it. -Yupik (talk) 12:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no loss since it's unreferenced anyway. Punkmorten (talk) 09:28, 18 December 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) 00:20, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 03:46, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of OpenBSD developers

article is merely a list of people's names and contact info with little or no possibility of expansion into a real article ThaddeusB (talk) 15:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability not really even claimed. Hobit (talk) 06:33, 18 December 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) 00:20, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- This is an indiscriminate accumulation of people's names. There is no notability asserted or established. Reyk _YO! 00:40, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- PS- one of the developers has a truly awesome name but that's beside the point. Reyk _YO! 00:40, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've got to agree with the above; this belongs on an OpenBSD webpage, not in any sort of encyclopedia. TheFeds 01:53, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not Wikipedia material. Punkmorten (talk) 10:08, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like a promotional page, or more like a directory of these people. Definitely not encyclopedic material. Chamal ^talk 13:37, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above. --Bobak (talk) 19:36, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mgm|^(talk) 09:39, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robert LaVelle

Not notable as in WP:BIO, WP:NOTE. Seems to be an autobiography, and claims notability for being on stage with other famous actors. A few sources do exist (1, 2, 3, 4), but they only list him in minor roles. -- NathanoNL [ usr | msg | log ] 14:37, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. —-- NathanoNL [ usr | msg | log ] 14:51, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —-- NathanoNL [ usr | msg | log ] 15:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 23:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This entry has no direction, no independent references, and alas no notability. It hurts to be deleted but with hard work and dedication hope springs eternal. Wikipedia will be here for many years. In a few years when direction is discovered and major references appear, perhaps someone will try again. Royalhistorian (talk) 04:59, 21 December 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) 00:20, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No assertion of notability in the article and from my scans I do not see any real third party information at this point that would suggest notability. |► ϋrbanяenewaℓ • TALK ◄| 00:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Happy ^Holidays 02:07, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Radiation Free Lakeland

Advert for a very recently formed action group. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 17:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable environmental activist group, no indication of notability, and hasn't been around long enough to establish notability. The person who created the group is herself non-notable. No reason to keep the article as it meets none of the inclusion criteria, either under WP:N or WP:GROUP. Theseeker4 (talk) 18:36, 17 December 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) 00:17, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Information in the tradition of Wiki on a non profit group concerned about recent decision affecting Cumbria and the North West -"no indication of notability" apart from role in informing Cumbria County Council on health effects of radiation. Group provides info from scientists in the field of radiation. Information which is not forthcoming from the nuclear industry to individuals, groups and councils "The person who created the group is herself non-notable" well don't like to blow own trumpet! -Artist and Campaigner ( Artist with Random House and Medici - successful campaigns - Rusland Beeches/Gm Free Cumbria) Marianne Birkby 22 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.92.105.126 (talk)

Delete. Has major notability problems, mainly (1) formed in December 2008; (2) no significant mention of the organization in a major news source. This group could end up being notable at one point or another, but not now. --Bobak (talk) 19:35, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 19:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rock dangdut

Okay, this one is a bit different. I have done google searches and I find, literally, hundreds of thousands of results, but that is only due to Rock being put with the term Dangdut. I do see some sources that have the two terms used together, but they are mainly saying that Dangdut can sound like rock on rare occasions. Having stated that, this article should either be deleted, or merged if a better article can be found. This page lists no sources and I don't see any reliable third party sources either. My vote is for delete. Undead Warrior (talk) 19:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Undead Warrior (talk) 19:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: article fails to established notability, per WP:MUSIC. JamesBurns (talk) 00:53, 19 December 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) 00:17, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since no verifiable sources or significant coverage can be found (and the article as it stands is singularly unhelpful in helping editors find sources). Drmies (talk) 16:15, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agree with the nom that this is different than most AfDs. Agree with a merge, but only if one can be found. As is, delete. --Bobak (talk) 19:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The nom hit it on the head. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:32, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mgm|^(talk) 09:38, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chad Cromwell

Questionable notability. WIkipedia article is his first hit, followed by MySpace. All other hits seem to be directory listings for albums that he's played on, or one-sentence mentions in Knopfler concert reviews. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As backing musicians go, he seems pretty notable. 156 Google News hits, has played on lots of well-known records, and was interviewed in Modern Drummer ([41]). Perhaps doesn't strictly meet the WP:MUSIC criteria due to lack of significant coverage of Cromwell himself, but there are plenty of sources for verification, and maybe in this case this is a subject that merits an encyclopedia article.--Michig (talk) 22:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Modern Drummer interview establishes notability per WP:BIO as far as I'm concerned, unless Modern Drummer is deemed an unreliable source. LinguistAtLarge 22:37, 17 December 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) 00:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Additional sources need to establish notability. But I think if the information can be verified and sourced there's enough. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--From the New York Times: "especially the drummer Chad Cromwell, whose time feel suggested the perfect blend of slouch and surge." 1--Jmundo (talk) 07:31, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 XXX. Mgm|^(talk) 09:36, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

XxX

Non notable fails WP:MUSICBIO tried to find sources but none were available BigDunc^Talk 21:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If the decision is made to delete, then this should be changed to a redirect to the disambiguation page XXX. If kept, the article needs to be renamed something like xXx (musical group) to, if nothing else, differentiate it from the film xXx. And if you think that's confusing to read, you should try typing it! No opinion from me on the article itself. 23skidoo (talk) 23:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 02:19, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable rapper as per WP:MUSICBIO. JamesBurns (talk) 01:05, 19 December 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) 00:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable per WP:MUSICBIO. Matt (Talk) 02:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to XXX. Article does not establish notability beyond being signed by a notable rapper (in fact, there's only two sentences about the actual subject in the whole article). Notability is not inherited and artist fails WP:MUSIC. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 04:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 13:38, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guillermo Cazenave

This article is part of a large (self?)-promotional crosswiki spamming campaign, most of it in the Spanish language Wikipedia, but also in the English and French ones. The article on Cazenave in the Spanish Wikipedia was deleted two months ago (see Spanish Village Pump and my user page from October 2008 for more information. Six different user accounts were created in the Spanish Wikipedia at different times with the sole purpose of creating articles on Guillermo Cazenave and all his relatives (including great-great-grandparents) and musical works, sort of like a walled garden network of closely related articles. When one of these accounts was blocked by an admin, hours or even minutes later another account was created with the same or very similar plans.
One of the user names is Astralweb, who also registered under the same name in the English Wikipedia. Astralweb is the name of Cazenave's music label and website. Sabbut (talk) 22:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having read the article, I cannot help but notice that it makes multiple claims to notability, including as a recorded artist and composer, and as a published author. It would appear that these claims need merely to be confirmed, and attested by independent objective sources, for the article to be eminently suitable. I restrain myself from comment on the nomination itself, as I am trying hard to assume good faith. Keep, subject to sourcing. -- Jubelum (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 09:17, 18 December 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) 00:15, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The label he is with is his own creation (compare the infobox to the external links). Mgm|^(talk) 09:35, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No substantial coverage to indicate notability per guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:20, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:35, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. --Bobak (talk) 19:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 03:53, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gabe Scelta

Fails WP:N. I don't think he meets the WP criteria (yet). ~~SIS~~ 23:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps should be a stub? —Preceding unsigned comment added by B33k33per (talk • contribs) 23:20, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, yes, but that still doesn't establish notability. ~~SIS~~ 23:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO. --fvw * 23:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question has anyone looked up the magazine reference? Is it a feature story or something else? If he's been featured in a notable magazine, I'd say this along with the award-nomination of the book he contributed to is enough to keep. Either by themselves, probably not. JulesH (talk) 19:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can't tell you anything bout the magazine. The book appears to be a collection of short stories, edited and compiled by the Daphne in the title. As far as I can tell she got the nomination. ~~SIS~~ 22:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that when an anthology is nominated for an award, that reflects on _all_ of its contributors as well as its editor. But by itself, certainly not enough to keep the article. JulesH (talk) 13:19, 19 December 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) 00:15, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient notability per guidelines ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above. Can't find anything credible third party sources. --Bobak (talk) 19:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 03:51, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nashville Storm

League might be notable, but there is nothing notable about an amateur football team that plays in a high school stadium. Smashville^talk 23:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 02:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Any team that plays in noteable. And about 99% of semi pro football teams play in high school stadiums. Only a hand full play at college stadiums and those that do usulay play at NAIA stadiums Rick lay95 (talk) 20:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC)rick_lay95[reply]

Any team that plays is not notable. There are oodles of youth teams, high school teams, church league teams. The fact that it exists does not make it notable. There are no sources and it is not even semi-pro. It is amateur. --Smashville^talk 20:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. No notability established. --Oliver Twisted (Talk) 04:07, 21 December 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) 00:15, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No substantial coverage to establish notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:20, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if we're arguing over the notability of various aspects of major-college football, this is not notable. --Bobak (talk) 19:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it simply isn't notable. There is zero hits of significant secondary sources, such as ESPN or even a major newspaper. Tavix (talk) 20:31, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 03:54, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Real estate in Romania

I'm nominating this article to form concensus on whether it's needed. We do seem to have articles on "Real estate in X", but as it is, this page is just a quote from here, altough it's most likely not a copyvio, considering it's part of the local law on the subject (unless laws are copyrighted in Romania). — Twinzor ^{Say hi!} 23:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 02:09, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, weakly. No opinion on the copyright issue, but the subject seems valid, and every article has to start somewhere. Might be profitably flagged for expert attention. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT 'Mere collections of public domain or other source material such as entire books or source code, original historical documents, letters, laws, proclamations, and other source material that are only useful when presented with their original, un-modified wording. Complete copies of primary sources may go into Wikisource, but not on Wikipedia.' (my emphasis). As it stands, nothing in the article is worth keeping so there's no reason why we can't delete it. If someone writes a valid article on it later (as Smerdis suggests) then they can simply create a new page with their content. Cynical (talk) 22:26, 20 December 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) 00:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per WP:NOT.--Oliver Twisted (Talk) 06:08, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a valid topic, and a very short stub would suffice; but like this it really doesn't pass criteria. Anyone with any idea of real estate in Romania could turn this into something worthy of keeping; but as I haven't a clue about the subject, I know I can't. Second Smerdis' call for an expert. Nyttend (talk) 14:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this could be a valid topic, but this isn't the way its supposed to be written. There's not normally a CP issue with a law, but the article would actually have to be about the market rather than the just the law itself. --Bobak (talk) 19:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the nominator pretty much summed up my reasoning. Tavix (talk) 20:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Aitias // discussion 14:01, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

North Circular Road, Dublin

Non-notable road Balloholic (talk) 00:03, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I’m sorry to disagree here but it seems that notability of the street has even been noted here state-side as shown by-New York Times [42]-Roanoke Times [43]-The Observer [44] - New York Times (again )[45]. Than of course there is The Telegrapher [46]. Not counting the numerous results from Google Scholar as shown here,[47]. So I hope you understand my reasoning for the Keep opinion. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 00:54, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I am studying each source dilligently and will respond as required. A couple of things I have noticed. Mentions of Ulysses in the NYT are not notable enough in their own right and should go here as standard. The second source is from something I have never heard of and even though I approached it with an open mind and was highly amused at some of its language, it can be dismissed purely because it notes the road is a busy thoroughfare - in the middle of a load of other lanes, avenues and alleyways that I'm sure would delight even the most uninterested American tourist. Wikipedia is not a shopping directory, nor is it a guidebook for tourists - it is an encyclopedia. --Balloholic (talk) 01:48, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Observer - Gerry Adams making a trip here is not particularly notable. He along with numerous other politicians can be seen on the streets of Dublin and the rest of Ireland when campaigning for election. I'm sure it is the same in every other country. Gerry is particularly renowned for doing this in his attempts to win votes. I imagine the idea of someone with as decorated a past as Gerry Adams roaming hungrily through a busy city street in broad daylight is very novel stateside but here it is all too normal. Bertie Ahern broke his leg prowling through Dublin recently. If it had happened on this street I would not consider it notable. --Balloholic (talk) 01:55, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The (so-called) "Telegrapher" provides us with this amusing anecdote drenched in grammatical errors (i.e. the road itself not in capitals, the use of garda in an incorrect context): "a middle aged man and woman walking backwards and forwards across the north circular road watched by scores of Garda, some of them on horseback, and filmed by a police camera set up on a large crane parked in the middle of the road." I find it extremely insulting and cannot see how this could be worked into an encyclopedic article.
The Ancient New York Times article seeks to tell the tale of a Presbyterian who got into trouble with the law. Again nothing particularly historic, just a general piece of news that you might even find in today's edition.
- To sum up. The number of sources is not everything. They have to say something useful. --Balloholic (talk) 02:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - :Comment - Ah, I see your point. The articles referenced do not meet your standards. When they talk about the road, it is either to placate the easily amused American tourist, or Gerry Adams stopping by, as I am sure he has stopped by every lane - street - road - highway in all of Ireland, or an article that you have found grammatical errors in and let us not forget the Ancient New York Times, which talks about a Presbyterian getting in trouble with the law, which between you and me the Presbyterians always seem to be in trouble with the law. How about the Google Scholar results, nothing in the 130+ books referenced there? You couldn’t find anything in one of the references showing that “…North Circular Road is one of the main transport corridors” or the “great tradition of the Pevsner architecture” is not listed? ShoesssS ^Talk 03:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Incidental mentions in articles discussing other things don't satisfy Wikipedia's standards. A newspaper article documenting demonstrations outside of a sports fixture, for example, that says nothing at all about this road, is not a source for this article, and certainly doesn't satisfy the Primary Notability Criterion.
      But an entry on pages 205–206 of ISBN 9780300109238, documenting what legislation caused the North Circular to be built, the Earl of Aldborough's miscalculation in building xyr townhouse on the road, and the slow pace of development over the 18th and 19th centuries, shows at least one published work that has covered this subject in depth.
      Picking a grab-bag of news articles that simply have the phrase "north circular road" somewhere in them, and then being sarcastic to editors that quite rightly point out that they aren't sources, because they don't actually document the subject at hand, is not a very effective rationale for keeping. Do what I did, and look for proper, actual, sources. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 04:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This does appear to be one of the main arteries in Dublin [48] and per the multiple sources found above.--Oakshade (talk) 06:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per rationale cited by Oakshade and Shoessss. Cbl62 (talk) 06:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Since we're going to have a trivial article like this, I suggest we mention its inclusion in the Irish edition of monopoly (really the Dublin edition in disguise) as well. Might I also point out that if we went by google maps and the roads they've highlighted we'd have at least 50,000 roads for Dublin alone and at least 10 for every nook and cranny in Ireland. Which would be fine but would we have anything interesting or notable (I use the two words interchangeably, not because I'm interested but because anything notable is interesting to me in that it improves Wikipedia)? No. I think not. Can anyone find anything interesting about such a highlighted road in Ennis or Athy? Google maps is used to indicate which are important roads but how are they important but to a few drivers who get lost and need directions? --Balloholic (talk) 22:17, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - That would be more suitable for mention in the entry on Monopoly. Autarch (talk) 15:47, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Exactly. But we're having a trivial article so it really should be included here as well just to complete the farce. --Balloholic (talk) 16:37, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - This road is a major thoroughfare on the north side of Dublin, with several buildings mentioned in it. Autarch (talk) 17:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Being near Croke Park hardly makes it notable. How near is near? If we go that far we might as well say it is near Japan. --Balloholic (talk) 17:25, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Two of them - namely the Mater Hospital and Mountjoy Prison are on the road, as stated in the article. Autarch (talk) 17:36, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Lots of streets have been deleted for having more notable buildings. The buildings are notable and have their own articles. COMMONSENSE. That is more than enough. If we want the phone numbers of the buildings we get a phone book. We don't need a business directory here. We're trying to run an encyclopedia. At least I think we are. Sometimes I think it is all a lie. --Balloholic (talk) 17:41, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep actually notable street, thanks to Joyce. Quite sufficient sourcing. DGG (talk) 12:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Where? Cure my blindness. "Man writes about large road in novel!" Sensational stuff. --Balloholic (talk) 16:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - See User:Themfromspace's comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Newbridge Avenue. Sums up the fact that it getting mentioned in a novel shouldn't make it notable for a one-line article on an encyclopedia. Try Joycepedia - or set it up if it doesn't exist. --Balloholic (talk) 14:09, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per everyone but nominator. Clearly notable. Edward321 (talk) 00:14, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cirt (talk) 01:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tinker's Christmas Radio Drama

Not sure which WP:* this falls under, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't fulfil the criteria therein. --fvw * 04:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this article should be deleted. After cleaning it up, wikifying, and citing some sources it should be pretty good, although it does seem to be an advertisement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ElectricRush (talk • contribs)

That's the problem. There don't seem to be any sources. Also please sign your posts. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 05:11, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:34, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not finding many references for this book/radio drama. The book has only a single brief review in The Midwest Book Review and I'm not finding any sources for the radio drama version. If there were some indication that this program had aired more widely it might be notable but it appears that it's of regional interest at best and has not received significant interest from verifiable sources. This all may be moot anyway because the article appears to have copyright issues. --Rtphokie (talk) 12:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: article fails to establish notability. JamesBurns (talk) 07:19, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (moved from main AFD log) First allow me to say, while I am not a regular to posting to Wikipedia, I am a regular user of Wikipedia. Thus I assume then that I am a Wikipedian. If this is not the case, please accept my apologies. I am the author of Tinker's Christmas. the book and the radio drama, as well as the author/originator of the post of "Tinker's Christmas the Radio Drama," on the Author's Den web site, where it was apparently picked up by Wikipedia. If I own the copyright to the book and the radio drama and am the originator of the post, I do not understand from where the concern regarding copyright infringement comes. As I stated in my previous explanation, I was both surprised and honored to see the listing on Wikipedia when alerted by Google that it had been listed. Thus in light of this information, does the debate re copyright infringement serve a purpose for this particular post? Thank you. Sjcworks (talk) 13:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)Sandra Jones CropseySjcworks (talk) 13:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moved here from daily log. — neuro^(talk) 15:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: like --Rtphokie (talk) --Tamás Kádár (talk) 16:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above. --Bobak (talk) 19:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] Procol Harum - Clase Johansen ISBN 0-946719-28-4

[2] ttps://www.imdb.com/title/tt0063340/

[1]

[2]